I just have to say, as a Christian man, I find it near impossible not to have sex with Christian women by like the 5 date. This is because they seem to expect it and reject you if you don’t make a move. I don’t get it. Most Christian women aren’t better than nonchristian women. I’m dating 3 Christian girls now and one is already inviting me to basically get drunk and stay the night (explicit invite) for the second freakin date. If I tell her no I want to wait, I’ll lose her altogether. It’s similar with the other women. Women want passion, and of you don’t provide it and escalate thy lose interest. It sucks because I just want a Christian wife and I get caught up in banging women who aren’t even my girlfriend yet. I don’t know how to go about this. It sucks being alone and on a carnal level it feels great to sleep with women, but I hate offending God and feel guilty about it. Do I just sleep with 1 then try to artfully escalate to marriage ASAP? Seems like a bad idea but anything beats sinning or being lonely and needy.

This is a tough question. Let’s consult the wisdom of modern Christian leaders. Here is what the Purity Bear has to say (H/T Rollo Tomassi):

According to that video, if you find a woman who wants to have sex on the first date, marry her!

I still wasn’t sure, so I thought I’d get a second opinion from he-man Mark Driscoll:

There you have it. Most men are pigs, and the handful of men who aren’t are tired of picking up after the rest. Man up and marry those sluts!

377 Responses to How should Christian men respond to slutty women? Marry them!

Blimey! Welli, well, well…we truly are up S*it Creek without a paddle. It would seem to me…that christian men are damned whatever they do. Screw around – ye engage in sinful fornication. Man up and marry a “christian” slut you are on direct course for divorce rape. Either way you turn you are essentially…screweed. Ours, then, is the Age of Catch 22, imo.

The third alternative, however, might be to go for a virgin Philippino bride? Afaik they are pretty christian there (Catholic) and meeting a nubile and chaste virgin is still possible. Might be a way out of this connundrum.

OT:

Never ye fear, brothers. You man children are not alone, no longer. The “Man up” epidemic has reached Germany:

Christianity, can be, for a woman, an invisible anti-slut shield, however like most invisible things it is not very effective, indeed (as I have said before – somewhere in the blog-o-sphere) whenever I meet a Christian woman, (not often) I praise the Lord, as I know that she really wants to have sex, and is as the Bard said, ‘protesting too much’. It all reminds me of that ex-gf of mine who, as a devout Christain went to Scotland to save the Scots from Drink (a task doomed to failure) became, herself, inebriated and lost her virginity to the hotel manager, but she never married him (or the hundreds who came after).

I would therefore like to draw to Dalrock’s attention devout Christian, Count Leo Tolstoy; specifically his third and last long novel, Resurrection. *Spoiler Alert* In this novel Tolstoy’s alter-ego Neklyudov is a juror at a Trial and recognises the woman who years earlier, he, when she was his maid, had seduced (the cad!) and who was now leading a life of Prostitution, which he puts down to the seduction; so, like a good Russian he follows her to Siberia and proposes marriage. I forget the end; anyway, as far as I can see Tolstoy’s Novel’s just got worse and worse as his previous one, Anna Karenin, is an apology for cougar-like promiscuity, I’d say.

I hope this post is not too flippant, but I must say, that over here, most women would regard the idea that marriage should be the result of sex on a first date as laughable. One’s reputation as a man would be seriously impaired and the woman would see it as ‘creepy’.

It would seem to me that if they are not following the teachings of Christ and the New Testament, they are Christian women in name only. “By their deeds shall ye know them”.
‘Don’t judge me!’ It isn’t my judgement you should be worried about, cupcake, but I’m going to judge you anyways.

tweell beat me to the punch… If that’s the way Bob’s women acting, I’d say they’re Christian In Name Only. I know the type – my wife has girlfriends who are always posting bible verses on their facebook wall, talk about meeting the right guy in God’s time, etc. Yet they’ll slut it up with the cads and wonder where their Prince Charming is. CINO.

Perhaps it’s because I live in the buckle of the bible belt where traditional values and waiting for marriage aren’t *completely* foreign concepts (yet) and calling oneself a “Christian” requires more than going to church a few times a year, but I didn’t encounter that sort of “sex me up or we’re through” vibe that Bob describes with most (though not all) of the women I dated. I know it’s anathema to say this in the manosphere, but there are some good girls still out there. You just have to look *really* hard.

Its difficult to underestimate the effect that many more years of increasingly shill MAN UP! will have on mens psyche . In the end I think that there is a serious risk that men collectively will not give a F*CK about womens concerns. I’m nearly there myself.

I’m sure there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. After all, girls who don’t put out right away are at a disadvantage in today’s SMP, especially with all us piggish menfolk around only looking to get some tail. Christian women are facing the double bind of needing to sin to get a decent hookup – er, husband – or needing to sacrifice passion and spontaneity in order to follow a plan. Can’t expect one of them to have the moral courage to do the right thing in the face of such adversity.

That’s part of why I practice my faith privately and eschew organized religion. I’m all for double standards in some things, but the requirement for some modicum of moral courage in the face of minor-to-moderate consequences seems like it ought to apply to women just as much as men. I suppose one could try to frame it as “taking the lead” when one refuses sex with a Christian girl (one would hopefully sound more dominant and, dare I say it, experienced than the actor above), then try to use the resulting Roissy-esque mindscrew of having turned her down as leverage to keep her interested… but that still leaves the problem of a supposedly Christian woman having wanted sex early on, and depending on your alpha-ness for her virtue. I don’t see a high success rate on that reframe even if the goal is worth it.

The sermon was pretty fun to watch, though. Heaping helping of the shame in the general direction of what he dislikes, “spray and pray”-style. Conflating physical abuse with reluctance to marry, with not having a job in today’s economy, and simply assuming that the women are passively going along with it and have no obligation to take care of themselves and their own spiritual health… plus, demanding that men submit and apologize to women on his orders and pain of divine retribution isn’t going to help a man maintain the dominant frame.

My local church had Driscoll speak about 8 months ago. He’s a compelling speaker, and the women in the audience were all shaking their heads in agreement. I stayed silent and sure enough in the car on the way home Mrs asks…”so, what did you think”.

I said, he’s a very dynamic speaker, and who would argue that two virgins meet and marry and stay together for life as an ideal.
Then I made the point I’ve made here on Dalrock before…Women are the gatekeepers of morality. If she ain’t giving, he ain’t getting…PERIOD!
To blame men for woman’s sluttiness is absurd. Women get they men they have signaled that they desire. The signal is woman’s easy availability without commitment…to certain types of men.

The only place where I say “man up” is for men to quit thinking with their nether regions and begin to live by “no rings for sluts!”
For every tramp/ born again virgin/ slut…there is some idiot guy who is willing to ignore the obvious and try to make shit into shinola.

I would have one response for Mark. These women are not Christian therefore I have zero obligation to marry them. I would go further and say Mark is not Christian himself, merely a con artist but I think many would probably realise that already.

The whole Christian ministry is a joke, with shame artists like Mark coining it. It’s all for the money whilst turning Christianity into a scam. Follow these people at your own peril.

We have the same kind of ‘ministry’ type people over here in South Africa. Perhaps Dalrock can do a piece on Ray McCauley. That would be fun to read!

Mark Driscoll. God, what a bullying, thuggish jerk. Of all people, to accuse men of being less than Christian…..Notice how he cynically passed round the plate after the screaming outburst? Get the cash in quick whilst the women are still thrilling to the abuse and the (few) men haven’t had a chance to escape.

What a vicious, abusive narcissist. Glowing in the Alpha adoration of the women in the congregation while he beats the crap out of the beta chumps who can’t defend themselves. Why would any man stay in the same church as that vile coward?

Pirran, sometimes the only thing for a good Christian to do, is to walk out of that Church and never look back. Being a Christian means having the courage to do what’s right; and that means being able to determine what is healthy for yourself and your family. That Mark Discroll turd is unhealthy to any free thinking male. My advise to those ‘few men’ would be to walk out. Make a statement and be heard, but don’t just sit there and take it. That’s the worst thing you can do.

I don’t respond well to ‘screamers’ like Driscoll. I don’t mind it from the girlies though.

Furthermore, anyone with a dumb-ass faux-hawk who wants to call me a “little boy” loses all credibility no matter what he has to say.

The idea that Christian boys want to marry sluts is good in the sense that they will likely have active sex lives with those girls. The bad news is their ransacked vaginas and lack of ability to pair-bond and high levels of risk for cheating.

As for the guy who wrote in, he has a legit problem. It has become a situation where if a man wishes to be principled and dictate that there won’t be sex until marriage because that is how he wants to conduct himself, he won’t be respected for this noble stance, he will be ridiculed and disrespected as a beta schlub named Herb who will be lucky to get the friend zone at best.

My solution is to reject marriage outright and stop agonizing over the sexual relationships. The “marriage” that Paul endorses in the New Testament were Patriarchal marriages. The marriage available today is a sick, powerless, emasculating hoax specifically designed to destroy men (and therefore society). When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. I have no choice but to rebel against the unjust feminist marriage structure.

The choices that we have, as far as choosing a wife, aint exactly what it used to be either. “A virtuous woman, who can find her?” No one, that’s who. Play the hand you’re dealt, boys, instead of pretending its something other than what you damn well know it is.

umslopogaas in the US someone with a very hard, uncompromising, sharp-tongued look about them is sometimes referred to as having a “hatchet face” or being “hatchet-faced”. That woman writer Silke is an example. Can’t imagine why she’d have any problem convincing men to commit to her…who wouldn’t want to awaken to that face & expression, eh?

Thanks for the linkage. This subject is getting nauseating. Feminized Christianity wants to appeal to chivalry to hold men accountable for women’s choices. No man can “dishonor” a woman who isn’t willing. These guys are in fact hardcore chauvinists, thinking that women can’t think for themselves and are easily duped, but at the same time that women are the “moral sex.” Fortunately for him, there are women like Paige who will still blame the big bad man for “assuming more self-awareness than the woman has” (direct quote from Miss Morticia).

Driscoll is just Hugo Schwyzer with a pulpit, a guilt-ridden self-flagellating alpha male who’s had the world at his fingertips and thinks all the other guys must have had that too.

I want an honorable man for my daughter, who right now is enmeshed in this crazy Christian SMP. I have, I hope, taught her well. She is no slut, neither is she a pushover. I hope I have taught her to notice men the other girls overlook.

She isn’t complaining about the slutty girls ruining the commitment-minded young men. Her complaints are more along the lines of dipshit Christian boys flirting with her then pulling out the “girlfriend” card when she responds. Her response so far has been to date around, accept invitations from these guys, ignoring their “girlfriends”. She says that pisses the girls off (she is attending a ‘Christian college’), but I think it’s a fairly good strategy.

I taught her ‘old school’. There are a series of stages a relationship between a man and a woman is supposed to pass through. The man is responsible for escalating. You get to choose from among the men who express interest in you, not from among those who don’t.

She isn’t complaining about the slutty girls ruining the commitment-minded young men. Her complaints are more along the lines of dipshit Christian boys flirting with her then pulling out the “girlfriend” card when she responds. Her response so far has been to date around, accept invitations from these guys, ignoring their “girlfriends”. She says that pisses the girls off (she is attending a ‘Christian college’), but I think it’s a fairly good strategy.

I’m curious what you meant by this. Is the point that these men and their girlfriends are assuming they have commitment where none actually exists, and therefore she is dealing with the (uncommitted) reality on the ground while seeking out true commitment (marriage)?

You get to choose from among the men who express interest in you, not from among those who don’t.

Being a Christian doesn’t mean you are sinless. It means you do your utmost to avoid sin. Doing that is a day-to-day fight and if you aren’t struggling with it then you probably don’t have a very well-formed conscience or a very good understanding of the rules. If you have a rule that “no sex until the 5th date” then you have a conscious plan to commit a serious sin. It’s not murder, for sure; it’s one of the more understandable sins; but it’s sin nonetheless. I’ve been a manwhore; I reformed when I married my wife, and have been good since. We returned to the Church not long before we had our first child, and we’ve remained, working hard to live the Gospel – alas with many failings along the way. It’s an ongoing fight.

I’m not sure that I’d have been cool even in my manwhore days of dating an ostensible believer, who then expects sex after the 3rd / 5th / 7th date. I had other problems that drove me out of the church for a while (“liberation theology” ring a bell?) but at the time I thought it’d be the height of hypocrisy to pretend I was religious when the top priority in my life was getting laid. I have a bit of a problem with a lot of the prosperity gospel evangelicalism for this reason. Much of it seems to be about following trivial rules relating to appearances (no drinkin’, no dancin’, play nice and tithe) while openly flouting some of the big ones – the recent discussion of divorce and the laxity on premarital sex, loudly condemning it in one voice and tolerating it with no repercussions are examples.

I’m lucky to attend a Catholic parish in a diocese that is orthodox in the sense of following Church teachings. It is a major, years-long hassle to get an anullment and it’s not guaranteed; the divorced are reminded every so often that if they choose to remarry absent anullment, they cannot receive communion, and there are periodic reminders (albeit discreetly phrased) that cohabitation and related activities are in fact mortal sins in the eyes of the Church and require confession, a sincere effort to stop committing the sin, and avoiding communion until in a state of grace. These are just logical implications of the doctrine of transubstantiation, but that doctrine and its implications seem to give the priests and our bishop the backbone and moral conviction to give unrepentant sinners in the flock the hairy eyeball. Do we still have open and unrepentant sinners? Yep. We still have people who are screwed up, near hopeless sinners – I reckon I have a lifetime enlistment in that particular army. But there’s an effort to do something about it, and less hypocrisy. Not every parish or diocese is as good, the modern rot has set in and infected many of them.

So how should a Christian woman respond to a man with loose morals? Marry him if he makes the case (actions over time, affirmances) that demonstrate he is going to be better than that. I really don’t have the answer in the other direction besides that; I don’t know the magical number where a basically good woman has put herself into the untouchable category. Given the complications for women – the chemical bonding, greater disease & infertility risk, women must have a lower number biologically than men, but I don’t think it is realistic to expect 0. Were I say 30 and looking to get married today, I’d be interested in a girl with a low partner count but wouldn’t have a magic number, would be more interested in pattern of behavior toward the opposite sex over a long period of time. I would avoid the carousel riders as a bad gamble on somebody who will have had some bad biological changes wrought by all that sexual activity, and who has a character that doesn’t lend itself to commitment. I couldn’t possibly expect perfection though, knowing where I had been and also knowing that nobody is perfect and to expect a human to be perfect is to set yourself up for failure. Marrying a woman who has had a few partners isn’t a big deal. Marrying a slut – like a woman marrying a long time dedicated PUA – is just asking for trouble.

I believe my daughter is calling these dipshits out. They flirt with her. She responds, and escalates. Then they get all nervous and start talking about their “girlfriends”.

Then they ask her out. She doesn’t even bother bringing up the “girlfriends”, but makes it clear that her acceptance of the invitation does not include any subsurface mineral rights. The girls get pissed off because she isn’t playing by the official rules, i.e. there are Girlfriend-girls and Fool-Around-girls. The other girls seem to be quite happy being Fool-Around girls hoping to move into the “Girlfriend” slot. My daughter is not about to become a Fool-Around girl, and her stated expectation to move directly into the Girlfriend slot is threatening the delicate balance.

She already knows that any boy who will promote her directly into the Girlfriend slot is likely to be the kind who can’t pull a lot of Fool-Around girls, i.e. less attractive. She is still negotiating this internally, but the recent crop of young men she has brought home for review aren’t at all objectionable.

I have to warn her about Dinner-and-Movie-whoring, though. She has a tendency in that direction.

Then they ask her out. She doesn’t even bother bringing up the “girlfriends”, but makes it clear that her acceptance of the invitation does not include any subsurface mineral rights. The girls get pissed off because she isn’t playing by the official rules, i.e. there are Girlfriend-girls and Fool-Around-girls. The other girls seem to be quite happy being Fool-Around girls hoping to move into the “Girlfriend” slot. My daughter is not about to become a Fool-Around girl, and her stated expectation to move directly into the Girlfriend slot is threatening the delicate balance.

Your daughter is being clever for her age. As I have always said to any women I have this conversation with. There are two categories of women. One that men will use for casual dates and sex but will not put a ring on her finger, even if the Lord came down and shocked them with lightning bolts; and then there is the girl who they would want to marry. The one that carries herself with dignity, who is responsible in her lifestyle and her life choices, faithful and respectful towards men, her father most especially, and has an extremely low partner count, preferably zero.

Needless to say, these women don’t get it or simply don’t want to get it and fall into the same trap over and over again.

The disturbing thing (to me) is that the young men my daughter’s age appear to have stopped making that distinction. All of the Official Girlfriends ™ are former Fool-Around girls, and the progression from Fool-Around girl to Official Girlfriend appears natural to the other girls. This is why my daughter’s behavior is so alien to them.

“There are two categories of women. One that men will use for casual dates and sex but will not put a ring on her finger, even if the Lord came down and shocked them with lightning bolts; and then there is the girl who they would want to marry. ”

Bingo. I ‘dated’ a lot of loose women. Some relatives asked one time in my mid-20’s if I was gay because I never talked about the girls I was dating and never brought them home. I was pretty blunt – “I’m having fun, but I’m not going to bring strippers, loose women and flings home to meet my momma. They aren’t marriage material.” When guys are ready to get serious about finding a mate, they’ll treasure a woman who does not give in cheaply. Until then… well, their attention isn’t worth much. She is likely to find a good man sooner than if she tries to follow the harem-to-primary-girlfriend path.

I laughed my way through that screecher video. Comedy gold. He should co-host with Colbert.

Although you have to wonder what kind of mincing nancy boy would sit through all that. Does this guy only have middle-aged divorcée hags desperately hoping the sect leader will bless them with his Holy Appendage today in his cult outfit?

Honestly Mule, I think those boys have made the distinction, if only in the back of their minds. Those boys are happy for those girls to be their girlfriends at this point in time. It’s free sex after all. They will dump those girls in a heart beat when they seriously start looking at their options with respect to marriage. Although, at their age, they aren’t even thinking that far ahead. Right now, they just getting it (sex) without having to put much effort in at all. Something about milking cows I believe?

With respect to your daughter, I think she’s making the better decisions that will help her later in her life. Right now, to your daughter, it must seem awfully weird how the boys react to her, which could potentially cause her to question traditional wisdom. I think that’s where you come in, you have to guide her through the process, you have to be able to teach her the abstracts of short-term consequences vs long-term consequences.

Although, if what you say is true, she at least seems to have a better head on her shoulders, compared to most of the other girls her age. And that alone should do wonders.

Mule Chewing BriarsYou get to choose from among the men who express interest in you, not from among those who don’t.

One of the most important things that a young woman can learn, because proper understanding of this will keep her from becoming a carousel watcher. Furthermore, if she doesn’t like any of the men who are expressing interest in her, then that means she needs to change something about herself, and not necessarily in some cosmetic, surface way either.

I would have one response for Mark. These women are not Christian therefore I have zero obligation to marry them. I would go further and say Mark is not Christian himself, merely a con artist but I think many would probably realise that already.

I agree. Somebody here will probably say that I’m using the “no trues Scotsman” fallacy but, unfortunately here, it’s extremely applicable. On a number of occasions I don’t believe that Dalrock understands how filthy and heretical many sections of modern “Christianity” are. He doesn’t fully comprehend their predictement. He hasn’t seen the number of Christians that don’t even believe in God (yes, skeptical and agnostic pastors and sheep exist). Many Christians haven’t even read their Bibles at all. Some Christians buy PC Bible translations where things like adultery, homosexuality and whatnot are pulled out of the Bible because it’s offensive, bigoted, delusional and sexist to the itching ears of modernity. Others act like New Agers with their “hate religion but love Jesus” teachings. There are so many things at work in today’s Christianity that for one to catch a glimpse of the macro view one would have to go to Christian websites dealing with theological issues, philosophical issues, apologetics and other things.

“Christians badly need to work on their image; how did shrivelled manginas like Mr Purity Bear, and lunatics screaming from a Southern pulpit become your spokepeople?”

Because in the modern US church, women:

1. Are the driving financial force. Women decide what churches/ministries get the money and how much. If they get angry or offended, they are the ones who decide to withhold the tithes and gifts.
2. Do the vast majority of volunteering, without which a church could not function.
3. Are the ones who decide where the family attends church and the level of commitment that will be given.

Whenever a gaggle of church ladies get offended/pissed off by something a pastor or someone else in the church said or did, the women immediately rise up with furious force against the object of their ire. They hold meetings to complain. They start letter writing campaigns to the object’s superiors. They quit their volunteer positions and recruit others to do the same. The gift checks stop coming. They threaten the pastor that they will take their attendance (and by implication their volunteer efforts and their money) elsewhere. All this is done to pressure pastors and their superiors to toe the feminist line. That means:

1. Don’t you dare preach about how wives are to respect their husbands.
2. Don’t you dare do or say anything to make a divorced woman feel the least bit of discomfort.
3. You may not preach or talk about the following subjects: divorce as a sin, extramarital sex as a sin, a wife’s submissive role in marriage as described in scripture, a husband’s proper dominant role as leader of his family.

It was quite difficult following Mark’s talk with all of the scripture references. I hate it when pastors base their teaching on the Bible.

To reach the masses he needs to stop relying upon the Bible, logic, and good reasoning. Instead he needs to throw a tantrum, start yelling and pointing his fingers, and try to play on peoples emotions. At the end he should close by discussing what his top priority is and pass around the offering plate.
[/sarcasm]

I think the whole context is messed up. The man asking the question at the beginning of the post complains about slutty women, yet he has no problem taking what he can get. It’s as if he is evading responsibility. He just has no choice but to screw the gals, since they offer it to him. He just gets “caught up”. Yet he is supposed to be a Christian, and wants a Christian wife. How is his behavior supposed to help? I would submit that he isn’t, and he doesn’t really want one. He’s one of the guys that is making decisions in the middle, not the margin. And nothing will change.

And the videos almost made me want to throw up. I can see, as misguided as it is, what the purity bear video is trying to say. It’s trying to address a modern situation and say that marriage is where the action should take place. The way it’s done is ridiculous, obviously. The Mark Driscoll video is disgusting, and willfully ignorant. My sympathies are with Dalrock for wading through what must have been many videos till he found this gem, and then watched the entire thing. Driscoll speaks as if the gals are handcuffed to the men they have chosen and have no responsibility in the matter. Thank God I don’t have to listen to this drivel at my church.

Dude is looking at it all wrong by playing into her frame. Reframe as the MAN who is controlling the tempo, as in “I dont really know if I like you enough to kiss you, much less slap the fat”. I find it very empowering to poopoo her efforts to get physical. We play it my way which is no horizontal rodeos till I hear wedding bells. Because of the lack of physical intimacy, it makes it very easy to spread the wealth by dating more than one at a time. For her to enter a marriage knowing that her man will not be swimming in any strange honeypot because he showed her his restraint beforehand, is powerful mojo.

I can’t believe that the Purity Bear video is not a parody. Is it really serious? I actually laughed while watching it. And as for Driscoll, oh my goodness. I couldn’t get past about 1:50 on the video and it took me two attempts to get that far. Has he read his Bible? Did he notice the proverbs? I’ve found eight separate warnings about adulterous women. They occupy a significant portion of the book of proverbs; it’s a main theme (Proverbs chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 22, 23, 30). And that is besides the multiple cautions about wives who make their husbands’ lives miserable from nagging and the like. (E.g., Prov. 27:15-16A quarrelsome wife is like the dripping of a leaky roof in a rainstorm; restraining her is like restraining the wind or grasping oil with the hand).

In case anyone is not super-familiar with the Bible’s book of proverbs, I’ll tell you how many warnings there are about adulterous or whiny husbands: none.

Obviously, if women are cheating then most of the time they’re cheating with men. So it’s not like men are blameless. However, there has to be a reason why the Bible repeatedly warns men about women, but not the other way around. I think there are a couple of reasons for it, but it’s a bigger topic than I can cover in a blog reply. However, the warnings themselves are interesting. They all tell men to stay well away from adulterous women. Don’t go near their houses, don’t chat with them, etc. They are trouble, always. I think the avoidance is for a few reasons, one of which is that once you are in close proximity to a woman and things heat up, it’s too late to make decisions. Your body is overloaded with the need to reproduce. The time to decide to do the right thing is before you have to decide anything.

The New Testament has similar avoidance advice, though it applies to anyone who is in a state of unrepentant sin. 1 Cor. 5:11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. The directive in this context was to throw them out of the church until they had clearly repented. I don’t know of any big church that does this anymore. But the fact is, according to the Bible, no church should have people in it who are living in sexual sin. They should be kicked out until they repent. Ranting from the pulpit to guys to MANUP(TM) is cowardly.

The NT says that to avoid fornication (sex with neither person already married), you should get married. One thing I can’t remember finding in the Bible is the woman deciding to marry the man. I may just be not sufficiently familiar with it to find an instance of such a thing, but as far as I see, if a guy wants a girl, he takes her as his wife. The woman has basically no say in it. Obviously, that is a weird thing to consider these days, but perhaps it would avoid a whole lot of problems.

I have a nephew who is 27, good looking, athletic, great job, by every measure a “good catch”.
He dates some fine women too, very attractive…physically.
A year ago he decided he wanted to settle down, so he is testing prospects. A first date nice romantic dinner out, a show, and escort her to her door…if she invites him to stay, they are immediately scratched from the “potential wife” list.
In a year all offer it up on the first date.
The new American woman, Tramps Inc!

@Badger
“Driscoll is just Hugo Schwyzer with a pulpit, a guilt-ridden self-flagellating alpha male who’s had the world at his fingertips and thinks all the other guys must have had that too.”

@Feminist Hater
“I would go further and say Mark is not Christian himself, merely a con artist”

I doubt there’s too much self-flagellating from a bullying thug like Driscoll (or Schwyzer). I think Feminist Hater hits the nail. He’s undoubtedly out of the same cynical scheming-scumbag mold as Schwyzer, with congregational women as his groupies and beta schlubs as the punching bag. Like Schwyzer, the humility is strictly for show. Guilt-ridden would imply at least some doubt in chucking guys under the bus and I see no evidence of that. Men are merely the means to provide the financial support to the groupies (and thereby him) and a convenient hate vehicle for the women as a whole.

I think it’s hard to over-estimate the ruthless self-interest and mercenary calculation of a pastor like Driscoll (or so many others). The Devil is just so passé; why not focus the hate on physical objects like men? It keeps the coffers over-flowing and thrills the single moms. Win-win.

This was interesting. It kind of confirmed my initial assessment of Driscoll as a guy who played by a set of Rules in his formative years and could never live down the feeling that he was missing out on other aspects of life. His overarching preoccupation with sexualized, secular culture is the strongest indictment of this.

This was an excellent comment from my post on Driscoll last week. I had pointed out evangelical men’s new fascination with MMA fighting and the push to make it “Christian Kosher”:

The point is that this evangelical embrace of MMA is not really surprising because it allows for the thrills without the danger. Sure you can get hurt in the ring or cage, maybe even permanently injured or killed at the extreme margins, but you can get killed much more easily when the guy you didn’t notice with the .22 Magnum derringer shoots you in the back of the head as you wrestle on the bar room floor with his 1% MC brother or as you bleed out after performing a perfect 1-2-3 combination on his cousin in a parking lot after he blindside prison rushes you with his concealed box cutter.

Similarly, evangelicals nerfing Game and rediscovering their masculinity in half-measure allows them to get a small testosterone high without truly questioning their core beliefs about women and men. That would be really dangerous as they’re psychologically and socially invested in their religious identities, just as we all are with out own identities. That’s the challenge of the red pill. Self-discovery and fundamental change are real scary motherfuckers because they begin by questioning everything you ever though and felt about life, and you have no real idea who you’ll become when you’re done.

So the MMA/Evangelical connection makes sense to me. It’s an easy cop out: a safe roller coaster ride that will end with the restraint bar rising upwards and a safe exit from the exciting ride to return to a mundane reality without exposing their inner selves to any frighteningly serious danger. That’s the connection in my opinion.

Great business model. The UFC should jump on this like stink on shit if they haven’t already, which I bet they have. Those guys don’t miss much.

I agree that you should extend grace to people who are fallen and messed up creatures. As human beings. Not as potential spouses. Just like a wouldn’t trust a crack addict around crack, a slut with a lot of male “friends” is a huge red flag. As a handsome guy over 6′ with a good job, I won’t put up with it. My last girlfriend threw a hissy fit when I asked her to drop an ex off of Facebook. (He had been texting her, I think it was a sh*t test.) Gave her a week to decide, then dumped her. Can’t be too careful, when people blame Facebook for 1 in 4 divorces. At 24, I’ve seen the marriage/divorce carnage and decided I’d rather be alone than with someone who has proven themselves untrustworthy in past sexual conduct.

To be honest, I don’t know the answer to Bob’s situation. Other than, break up with the girl when it gets to this point (or when you get the first sense that something might be up, that she may be a slut) and look for the next one.

I’m thinking, too, that just as women should look for the men that other women overlook, likewise men should look for the women that are often overlooked.

I’m often described as “cold and “aloof.” Look for that girl, she’s guarding herself carefully from being treated poorly by sluts and man-whores/cads alike.

I need to go back a bit to when I had just become a Christian and had broken up with my long term gf. I went to a local church and made friends with several people there, including a divorcee who had split from her husband when she came home early from work as a result of a power failure and found him in bed with her former ‘best friend’. she claimed to be a Christian and knew all the correct answers to the questions, but made it clear that she knew she was good in bed and was not waiting until her divorce was final before getting sexual. I took the advice of Scripture and fled immorality. My wife, who is also Christian, made it clear that she was not prepared to get sexual before marriage and I have no regrets about marrying her.

People have missed a point that Mark Driscoll has made in some of his other sermons, and that is that the world is divided into two categories. They are forgiven sinners and unforgiven sinners. My point is that if someone is a Christian, then they need to follow the commands of Scripture and flee immorality. They need to take the power that the Holy Spirit gives them to change their lifestyles and live life according to The Bible. It is not easy, as I can testify, but it is possible. It was in undergraduate psychology I was first faced with the question “So what?”. The tutor was saying that if the papers we had read did not make any difference in the real world, they were a waste of time. It is exactly the same with Christianity. If it makes no difference to the way you lead your life, it is not authentic Christianity. It is a facade, or a sham. Even a con job. But it is not Christianity.

“I just have to say, as a Christian man, I find it near impossible not to have sex with Christian women by like the 5 date. This is because they seem to expect it and reject you if you don’t make a move. I don’t get it. ”

I know I am not the first to note this, but where exactly are these “christian” women he is dating and perhaps he is fishing in the wrong pond?

And also, if he is seriously seeking a wife not to point out the obvious, but if they are only going to stay with him if he is willing to fornicate with them prior to marriage then perhaps that is a sign that he should move on and not pursue it any further, and oddly also, if this has repeatedly proven to be a problem (although to be honest I question that he seems to think it is a problem as he does go along with it it seems) then why isn’t he having a conversation about this before date number 1? I’ll admit I have only seriously courted one woman in my life and am married to her now so perhaps the nuances of dating escape me, but still, this seems like a prudent conversation before date #1 or at least before date #2 at any rate.

“Seems like a bad idea but anything beats sinning or being lonely and needy.”

I know I will probably get taken to task for saying this but may I suggest he actually do “man up” (although not by marrying these walking train wrecks). Not having sex wont kill you, exercise some self control. You will certainly need to exercise self control if you actually meet an appropriately chaste woman that you claim to be looking for so why not start now? This last line makes it sound like you are making excuses for what you want to do.

I’m not saying it is easy, but God never promises an easy life if you follow him just a life in line with the way it is meant to be lived. You’ve already made lots of poor decisions and so will have to suffer the consequences for this behavior but that doesn’t mean you are doomed.

“Christian” SMP only means they pump and dump other Christians. Driscoll’s a bit behind the times… needs the change the Ed Grimley haircut, too. And when a Christian woman says “I’m not haaappy” she still means ““I want to give the house, half your income and our kids to a lowlife who’ll screw me silly in our bed then whore me out to his drinking buddies for fun until I’m unwanted and alone so I can feel fulfilled.”

That’s a shorter version of the purity bear video then I once saw. In the other one, the best man came up and stood beside the groom. When the groom faced forward, the bride and best man winked at each other.
I guess the original message of no rings for sluts wasn’t well recieved.

Hey Dalrock has this Mark guy seen any of your articles on him? I wonder if he would be a good candidate to learn game and then game his female flock of sluts to keep themselves in check. to make themselves presentable to christian men. His first sermon would be for an answer to this question How should christian men respond to slutty women? His answer should be “fuck the hell out of them in every opening they have as many times as you like. And for gods sake pull out of her pussy and shoot your load on her back or on her sheets because you don’t want to be stuck paying child support to slut cum bucket.” he should use the that language and be as blunt as possible. No slut in a church should ever be made to feel comfortable as a slut in a church. And to add to that no proud christian man should ever be portrayed as a clean chump for a slut. The church should always portray a solid christian man as a prize a woman should strive to deserve. It kills two birds with one stone it will require christian men to be masculine which will add to the desirability for a woman and will enhanse the submission to male leadership meme.

The problem with slutty women is not so much their past as much as it is their future. Being far from perfect, forgiveness and redemption are important to me. But when you consider that whatever relationship you have is built on a legal foundation of sand, it becomes risky to the point of foolishness to marry, particularly to a woman who has had a high partner count. Forgiveness is one thing but stupidity is another.

Many of these youngish new-age pastors remind me of a saying my parents had from days of yore:

These. Continuing to interact with these women is bad for Christian business. A), They don’t appear to be wife material, hardly repentant, so why waste the effort, and B) dabbling in occasion to his own sin and theirs doesn’t seem to be charitable or prudent on Bob’s part. Sounds like trouble. Pregnant-by-another-man-whose-number-she-can’t-remember trouble so she called you instead. Run. away.

And Driscoll? Seriously? We should pray for the good behavior of women in our culture, but we’re not going to marry them out of their willful condition.

“Damn she is a real looker..Hang on, where are my glasses to get a better look.aaarrrghhhh!”

“Everyone do this.
Scroll up the page slowly…nice….nice…sexy…..arghhhhhhhhhhhhhh what on earth is that.
Now do 3 times with the same result for each picture.”

“mouth like a tortoise, i keep shoving bits of lettuce at my screen.” …..

“with a brown paper bag on….I’d give it a go!”

I think we now have a new class of slut, the stretch mark slut, 10x times sluttier then a regular slut & 10x times fuglier … how do you spot a stretch mark slut? … her stretch marks & crack whore like ass ….

The crack whore stretch mark slut, living proof of the low standards of membership feminism requires … & creates in lower class Britain, wont be long before the majority of sluts in britain start sport this fetching but distinctive new look!

Hi Dalrock, off topic comment but I thought of your blog posts on Fire-proof and women conflating porn with adultery this morning listening to Glenn Beck’s radio show. Discussing Newt, a caller chastised Beck for talking about Newt’s affairs when he himself had been adulterous before. Glenn says: “That’s news to me.”
The (female, of course) caller explains that his alcoholism was an affair.
Wow. Is there anything a man can do that won’t be tucked away as potential justification for divorce?

@TFH
It is a PUA canned hunt and the church is doing nothing about it. It is just staight up lieing to women that need the truth. For a good christian man to throw his life away on one of these women is feeding the beast. It is pure madness on the part of the church.

LOVE the Mark Driscoll video. In fact, I support him 100% and may even send him a check. That man is thinning the herd, and every beta he shames back into “the fold” by claiming the Alpha anger his rhetoric provokes is really the “Holy Spirit” landing a bitchslap of conviction yields more breathing room for me.

More power to him.

As for Bob the commenter, there is not one verse in the bible that condemns premarital sex. Not one. Even the famous Deuteronomy 22:21 which seems to be the go-to verse to suggest premarital sex is a sin is used out of context. Read the whole chapter, and it is immediately evident that the problem is not virginity or lack thereof; the problem was the fact that money was paid for virginity and virginity was not given in return. This chapter is not about the sin of promiscuity, it is about the sin of lying, deception and the resulting shame it brings upon a household. A virgin bride was just an example, because back then, a young woman’s ability to bring a dowry to her father by offering a man a virgin womb so he could be certain his first born son was really his was the only way a woman could bring honor to her family and her future husband.

While you’re reading the “she’s not a virgin so give me back my money and stone this bitch for lying” story, run your finger up to verse 11 of that same chapter, and remember that any minister who preaches that you should not to bang before marriage while he’s wearing a wool-viscose blended suit is a hypocrite and in violation of the same archaic set of laws in the same chapter of the same book he’s using against you.

Bob, my brother, it is not illogical to surmise from the bible that purity is the responsibility of the woman, and that responsibility is only placed upon her when resources are being exchanged for her purity. Today, men do not exchange resources before the wedding – we do it after. That’s why, biblically speaking, we have no right to ask a woman to wait for us before the wedding. Only after, when resources are exchanged, do we have the moral authority to demand she reserves her womb for us.

There are a host of social and psychological reasons why promiscuity is harmful to women, but Bob’s question was not predicated on those factors. So if the Good Book is Bob’s only standard, then he’s free to bang away. Biblically speaking, if a woman is not lying to you about her sexual past in order to get a ring and commitment (resources), she’s free to conduct herself in any sexual manner she chooses.

Bob would be well advised to still identify her as the slut she is, but not for any credible religious reasons.

The Bible refers to sex when neither party is married (premarital sex) as fornication.

From Galations 5: Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness. . . of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

From Colossians 3: But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints . . . For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

From 1 Corinthians 6: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Mark, crack open your Greek and Hebrew lexicon and look up fornication. Heterosexual activity is never condemned in the bible when talking about two single people. The most conservative scholars will agree with this assessment even when doing so causes them to squirm and nearly brings them to tears. The word fornication is used to describe idolatry (predicated on the notion that Christians are the bride of Christ), and adultery (predicated on the notion that women are the bride of man). Incest, homosexuality, etc. are called out as specific terms or loosely translated in modern bibles as “Sexual immorality/perversion.”

Idolatry and adultery is fornication. Cheating on God and cheating on your spouse is fornication. Christ made a sacrifice on the cross to claim his bride, and men paid a dowry for their bride. A Christian cheating on God with other gods and a woman cheating on her man with other men is fornication. It should also be noted that Paul kicks up his condemnation of fornication right about the time he was writing letters to newly formed churches in cities renown for serving many different gods.

Paul was only concerned with new Christians breaking vows; vows between Christ and his bride, and vows between brides and their husbands. The actions of single people (outside of incest, homosexuality, bestiality, etc.) were of little to no consequence.

Applying the pop definition of fornication to a 2,000+ year old text is not prudent research. Remember when the word gay meant happy?

Even if you disagree with literal Greek and Hebrew interpretations of your modern bible (as do many Christians because it makes things very inconvenient and uncomfortable) you would have to admit it’s odd that a major transgression such as premarital sex between two single people does not receive a thumbs up or thumbs down plainly and unmistakably when so many other seemingly lesser infractions are. Why would an omniscient omnipresent God leave an all-important subject capable of bringing eternal damnation and separation to such abstruse lexicographical exegetics?

He wouldn’t.

I’ll give you the last word on the subject, but for fuck sake, please resist the urge to copy and paste from the “true love waits” brochure your daughter leaves around the house to make you think she’s not getting split in half by that “totally dedicated and super-awesome” Christian boy she met at a Kutless concert last month.

good for both of us you mean — seeing as we were both young and inexperienced. I was 20 and he was 24 when we made our public pronouncement. we had a ceremony several years after. the first was legal, the second was ceremonial (for family and stuff).

I’m the guy who made that comment. As for the people claiming I’m not a Christian, well, I mostly do tell them no and lose the girl. I have messed up a few times, but it’s hard. Not bein married and not being able to have sex eats at you. Especially when you only have a few months a year to meet women and all your friends are getting tons of I&I during downtime and you can only hear about it (I’m active duty Army). I haven’t been a Christian that long, and my fiancé left me when I became one because she got pissed off that I started goin to church and talking about the Bible so much. So I thought Christian women would be down with doing the right thing and I was wrong. I met 1 decent Christian girl and she’s a Russian woman who is really into the Orthodox church. She seems quite moral and I feel no pressure to have sex with her. So i am considering joining the Orthodox church. If it doesn’t work out with her, I think I’ll look abroad, like the guy who mentioned Philipino brides said to do. One of my buds found a Philipino woman on the Internet and she’s awesome. She came here an married him right away. Russian women seem to be the best so far though, and they like us soldiers.

Also, to the commenter who auggested telling women youre waiting til marriage on the first date – you cannot tell a woman that. It will raise red flags, or more accurately, ultra beta flags, in her mind. People who recommend this have little to no experience interacting with the SMP.

Sorry for any writing issues with this post. Wrote it on my phone so it’s not too good.

I watched most of Driscoll’s video. I concur that it looks like he’s had his life a bit easier than most. Especially telling is the “get a job” comment smack dab in the middle of a recession. Sure. You can get a job and work hard, but that’s no guarantee your work will pay enough to support a family.

The men he is calling out to be cowards seem to be the ones who are abusive or controlling in their relationships. Granted, he’s also calling out men who are being stand-up guys and not taking nagging from women.

All in all, I think Dalrock has it right about Driscoll’s betaization tendency in his rants. I say that because Driscoll seems to draw his arguments a bit too broadly, leveling accusations at both appropriate and inappropriate targets.

I wanted to know more about Purity Bear; to find out its provenance. I didn’t get far, though I can tell that the people who made the video are surely well meaning, but I did come across something: Perhaps you recall the Atheist (with a capital A) woman ‘skepchick’ – the woman who freaked out because a man in an elevator was brazen enough to say how interesting he found her and how he would like to talk to her some more, over a coffee – well, she has weighed in! Is she a supporter of Purity Bear? No, of course not, she recomends contraceptives.

Given that, in a way, the Purity Bear video is essentially a re-run of her late-at-night elevator encounter, it should surprise me that she does not seem to see the irony, but it doesn’t. Perhaps the boy in Purity Bear should have blogged on the Net how creepy he found the idea that a woman should invite him in for coffee.

Of course in real life the boy would have instantly agreed to go in for coffee and jokes, but the video is either implying that the girl is a Jezebel or that women are incapable of saying no. Both views are of course complete nonsense.

Bob: Just a thought, if you are having that much “success” with chicks, whether desired or not, you might have the Alpha turned up too high. When I was in the navy, away from naval bases, just knowing I was in the services the sluts would swarm me. Just like how a girl dressing like a slut sends signals to the cads, you might be inadvertently signaling to the “Christian” sluts. Dial it back, or even set your sights on a more attractive woman (they can afford to be less slutty in the SMP) and you might have better luck.

An idea for a new bracelet that wimpy men can wear. The WWMDD bracelet. A perfect present to give your future husband, boyfriend, lover or ONS in order to get them to think the ‘correct thoughts’ that Mark Driscoll provides.

I met 1 decent Christian girl and she’s a Russian woman who is really into the Orthodox church. She seems quite moral and I feel no pressure to have sex with her. So i am considering joining the Orthodox church.

There are many secular Russians who (among the women) are just as bad as Westerners, but a devout Orthodox Christian woman is a good bet. The Orthodox Church is patriarchal in its nature and has not made the concessions to feminism that even the Catholics (the most patriarchal of the Western Christians) have done — likely because it is not subject to the same degree of pressure in that regard, but also due to its staunch traditionalism. Keep in mind, though, that Orthodoxy is intended to be “hardmode” Christianity. We’re focused on “orthopraxy” quite a bit, and are quite ascetical (even “lay” people .. the difference in fasting and asceticism between lay people and monks is one of degree, but all fast in ways that are usually shocking to Western Christians). Be careful, of course, but the Orthodox Church in the Orthodox World is not a bad place to go woman shopping — the usual caveats in mind, of course.

I’ve never read a True Love Waits brochure, or anything else remotely similar. Nor do I care for what Bible scholars have to say, for the most part. Half of them disagree with the other half, some of them don’t even believe in a literal God, and many of them make it their life’s work to make excuses for denying the power of God.

I do care what the Bible says. And I do have several lexicons, concordances, and despite what I said above, a few commentaries. I have my Strong’s on hand right now and it says that the New Testament Greek word for fornication means harlotry and comes from a root word meaning to indulge in unlawful lust or act like a whore. It is figuratively used to denounce idolatry, but is not literally idolatry. Idolatry is spiritual fornication; however, literal fornication is a physical, sexual act.

But even leaving aside for the moment the specific individual translations for the word fornication, the running theme throughout the Bible is that sex is designed for marriage. The Old Testament law stated that if two people had sex and they were not married they had to become married. It talks about the whole “one flesh” thing several times, the joining together of two individuals as one. If your first sexual act outside of wedlock results in a commandment to wed, then it doesn’t leave room for more sex outside of wedlock, does it? You can’t even engage in sex with others while betrothed, since that is punishable by death. So, sex before marriage results in marriage; sex while in a betrothal or marriage, with someone else, results in death.

@Hermit – I tried dialing back, but I didn’t feel like it was the best idea. It felt very unnatural and getting dates is hard enough (sure I manage more than most men, but it’s not easy by any means). Additionally, if she’s going to act slutty around someone more alpha, I want to know that off the bat – whoever marries me will spend a lot of time around alpha men due to the nature of my job, and I plan on staying here until they boot me of old age. I do try to infuse a lot of beta provider game – I pay for nearly everything all the time (I can afford it though, I really have nothing to spend my money on). I have a set point where I stop escalating – I make out with her then stop and say that I don’t think we’ve been together long enough to go further. I totally am willing to marry the right girl and I even have thousands on the ready for a ring (or male dowry, as people in this community call it, lol). I like the idea of going for hotter girls though – not because they’re hotter, but because I think you might be right that they can afford to be less slutty. They are less likely to feel the need to use sex as bait. That’s a good idea.

@Brendan – I agree. Russian women on the whole are just as bad as American women. Actually I think on the whole they are easier, although that could be a gringo effect. I really like what I see from the Orthodox Church so far. The theology actually is pretty straight. I’m definitely doing my homework on the church. I don’t exactly know how to woman shop though in general. I’ve narrowed it down to the Internet really. Female soldiers are a no-go, I feel like many of them are just there to get military dick in the first place, and my church doesn’t really have anything for me to do so I find it hard to meet the women there.

At any rate, I’m glad Dalrock saw my post, I was surprised to see it on the home page here. I feel internet famous, lol, even though I’m using a fake name. It’s good to see all these perspectives on the matter and I think I’ve gleaned a lot of useful advice from the posters. I am not going to go bang to my hearts delight as some posters suggested. I really do think the Bible is against fornication and it’s clear on the matter.

As for purity bear – he’s a symbol of all that is totally gay within mainstream Protestantism. Driscoll has also completely lost me – I used to be a big fan, but I think he’s kind of dumb. He even rationalizes away his wife’s slutty behavior back in the day, basically saying it was due to her sexual abuse. He also thinks he acted immature for being angry after discovering it. Weird.

Don’t know if this was mentioned but the commercial referenced in Whiskey’s post here: http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2012/01/modern-view-of-marriage.html should be all the answer needed to Driscoll’s drivel. Exactly like it says, “My boyfriend and I were going on vacation … we talked about getting a diamond, … but with all the points I earned … I flew us to the rock I really had in mind.” THAT is what we face today in the dating marketplace. Driscoll’s emotional rage filled outburst (which already makes me think it wasn’t something Spirit led) can go fly a kite. Women aren’t being held into account and thus they’ve poisoned the well. My own divorce is a great example of “Christian” women getting away with frivolous divorce because the Church as a whole didn’t do enough to shame such a concept.

“I have messed up a few times, but it’s hard. Not bein married and not being able to have sex eats at you.”

Hi Bob.

I’m sure it isn’t easy. As I said, God doesn’t promise life will be easy. Nowhere is the promise made in the Gospels, “Come to Jesus and everything will be peachy for you from now on”. Actually the opposite is promised. I don’t say this to discourage you, but to give you realistic expectations. The only thing promised in the Gospels ultimately is the Truth.

“I haven’t been a Christian that long, and my fiancé left me when I became one because she got pissed off that I started goin to church and talking about the Bible so much.”

I’m sorry to hear that.

“So I thought Christian women would be down with doing the right thing and I was wrong.”

I’m not sure this is true Bob. I think the problem is that you are fishing in the wrong pond. But it seems you are making the connection yourself.

“I met 1 decent Christian girl and she’s a Russian woman who is really into the Orthodox church. She seems quite moral and I feel no pressure to have sex with her. So i am considering joining the Orthodox church. If it doesn’t work out with her, I think I’ll look abroad, like the guy who mentioned Philipino brides said to do. One of my buds found a Philipino woman on the Internet and she’s awesome. She came here an married him right away. Russian women seem to be the best so far though, and they like us soldiers.”

Maybe that is a good plan. From various reading here it seems that marrying an “American girl” (BTW I’m an Australian) is probably a recipe for disaster as even the “christian” girls are deeply infected with feminist lunacy.

“Also, to the commenter who auggested telling women youre waiting til marriage on the first date – you cannot tell a woman that. It will raise red flags, or more accurately, ultra beta flags, in her mind.”

Fair enough. It was just a suggestion. It seemed like it was worth getting the question out of the way though as you seemed to be running into the problem of getting a few dates in and then it all blowing up in your face. Also, a better suggestion would be to find some place where waiting till you are married is actually the expectation, thus making it a non-issue but it seems like you are not in such a place.

“People who recommend this have little to no experience interacting with the SMP.”

You are right I do not. Had one serious girl friend and am married to her now. I’ve learned a lot since coming here but much of the knowledge is theoretical.

Also if I came across as suggesting you were not a christian i’m sorry. I didn’t mean to suggest that. Although from your original post it did seem like you were opting to sleep with the girl to make things work as if you “had no choice”. It is good to see that that is not the choice you are making.

I made it about a minute into Driscoll’s video before returning to my music. Right around the part where he says he intimidate our women by looking at them in some vague, unknowable way.

That and the fact that he is absolutely dripping in self righteousness while simultaneously not knowing what the @#$% he is talking about.

Commenter Bob is just finding out what a lot of us youngin’s already have. The girls in church are no different. In fact, some are worse. A lot of my school’s “bicycles” amazingly, no, miraculously (!), got very devout senior year/right after graduation.

“Nor do I care for what Bible scholars have to say, for the most part.”

Mark, I said I’d give you the last word on the subject, and I meant it. We’ll agree to disagree and put this subject to rest. To the remainder of the crowd here I present to you by virtue of Mark’s quote above, a shining example of how Christian girls easily justify their actions. It’s a template for what the bible describes as “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”

@ Bob-” Driscoll has also completely lost me – I used to be a big fan, but I think he’s kind of dumb. He even rationalizes away his wife’s slutty behavior back in the day, basically saying it was due to her sexual abuse. He also thinks he acted immature for being angry after discovering it. Weird.”

The other reason Mark Driscoll is getting mad that men don’t marry sluts:
Maybe he created a few of them himself in his younger, alpha, skirt-opening days (I’m not sure how often alphas skirt-chase, since women come to them).
And he doesn’t want them to ruin his marriage.
That’s also the reason players want beta men to get married: takes the heat of dealing with the woman on a daily basis off of them, while they get all the good bits of a relationship without having to be in one.
Ah, that’s the definition of alpha: Making others pay for your lifestyle.

P Ray, I couldn’t have said it any better. Your last sentiments regarding alpha’s is spot on, mate. Mark is the type of guy who would secretly high-five a “brother” for getting some when he is young and then “repenting” afterwards when he has landed a submissive 7,8,or 9. I’ve seen alpha’s like him in my church and I didn’t waste any time in calling out their bluff’s and their con-job games. You know, that is what they are…grifters or “con-men”. That’s why women say they are attracted to “confidence”…it’s a quality that is found in abudance with “confidence men” who use and abuse their way to financial wealth and sexual wealth. They are inherently attracted to certain criminal pathologies, that alone aren’t any problem, but with a sliding moral infrastructure lead to slutitude and the rest of the men who CHOSE not act upon their baser instincts and took up the real call for Christ, like Bob is wanting to, are the ones who end up having to “man up” and clean up the slack. I don’t eat regurgitated food, and I don’t wear hand-me-down second-rate clothing..so I sure as hell am not going to marry and f$^% a recycled woman. Sorry, that’s just a personal standard I maintain. Bob, I will pray for your brother. And if no one has already thanked you, thank you for defending our freedoms, well..thank you for your honorable sacrifice.

Bob, maybe you should consider actually writing down your requirements. It’s one of life’s ironies that we men will pour over specifications on all sorts of things that we want, such as cars, guns, computers, sound systems, etc. and methodically list advantages vs. disadvantages in order to reach a decision, but all too often we just throw our hands up in the air when it comes to women.

I agree that any potential wife for you must be very, very loyal due to the different situation she will find herself in. So perhaps that needs to be first on the list: deep, absolute loyalty to you. Maybe she should have therefore grown up in a faithful church, preferably with two parents. As an officers wife she needs to be articulate, able to hold up a conversation at least for a little while. She needs to be able to keep to a schedule even when it’s not all that easy. So she needs to have good impulse control, and a future-time orientation: she needs to know all by herself how to control herself, and sacrifice some present short-term pleasures for longer term goals, right?

Such requirements, if you agree, screen out a lot of venues – forget bars and other singles havens. And as you know, it screens out a lot of women in churches, too. Maybe you need to learn to like classical music and go spend time with whatever groups attend the symphony, or opera. These entertainments are not as stimulating as the latest CGI movie, and last for a couple of hours with an intermission, so people who go need to have impulse control. If there is any sort of book society, that might be worth looking into. Or museum guild. Things where people with patience and curiousity go. It would be very, very good for an officer’s wife to have some sort of thing that she can do on her own – painting, or other artistic work, for example – that will keep her off of Facebook.

Draw up a short list of “must have” requirements, and another short list of “deal killers” (you already have one deal killer on your list – easy sex). Forget the cosmetic details, the “red hair, green eyes, 5’7″, C-cup” etc. because that doesn’t matter as much as her character, right? Then think about where such people are more likely to be found, I offered some suggestions above. Go to those places, avoid places where such people aren’t.

Last, let it be known to the wives of other men near your rank that you are looking. I kind of hesitate to write this, because on the one hand I spent part of my childhood in a base town surrounded by families with upper NCO’s and some officers, but on the other hand that was a long time ago and some aspects of military society may have changed. But it is perhaps worth considering, because the mil-wives should be able to screen out flakes and sluts on their own. They sure used to do that years ago, sometimes with a vengeance. Hmm. I wonder if Hestia is still blogging? She had good insights into all of this. Dalrock? Anyone know?

if a man wishes to be principled and dictate that there won’t be sex until marriage because that is how he wants to conduct himself, he won’t be respected for this noble stance, he will be ridiculed and disrespected as a beta schlub named Herb who will be lucky to get the friend zone at best.

This is EXACTLY how I was treated by “Christian” women when I was single. So-called Christian women were either (a) not interested in me at all (most of them), or (b) would willingly fuck after a few dates — with a few very rare, rare exceptions. At one point I thought, “All the righteous ones LJBF me and I only can attract the sluts” — but now I’m more cynical and I think that many of those I believed to be good, simply weren’t attracted *to me* but slutted around with other guys. However I can’t be sure of this.

Whatever the case, It’s MUCH easier for a man to get laid, than get married, even in church. Combine that with the fact that modern womens’ educational & economic expectations force most men to stay single til age 30+, and you have a recipe for near universal fornication. And severe, mindwarping frustration for the small minority that holds out.

Most Christian women wouldn’t give me the time of day (niceguy syndrome), but of those who did date me, almost everyone that I ever got past 1-2 dates with, tried some sort of seduction. When I was strong and held firm, I was quickly dumped; when I was weak, i sometimes gave into the heavy pettting game and went farther than I should, to my shame. In both situations I was MOCKED for refusing to go “all the way” til the wedding. Three “bible believing christian” women openly stated — 2 to my face, 1 behind by back — that they ruled me out of consideration because I wouldn’t fuck them before the wedding.

I never went all the way til my wedding night. At age 38. While I was still single, this made me a freak. Now, somehow, it makes me a hero in the eyes of Christian women: “Wow, you waited, that’s great!” What gives?

van Rooinek it is pretty simple. Game explains it handily. It is a larger scale version of the problem a man on his own has doing approaches: he’s an unknown quantity and women can’t decide if he’s a “creep” or a “keep”. On the other hand, a man who is with a woman is already “socially proofed” because he clearly has some value to at least one woman.

Before, when you were on the market, you were an unknown quantity and thus to be tested. Given the herd mentality of women, and the widespread “dump your virginity ASAP after high school if not sooner” meme that is dominant among young women, your refusal to “do it” made you different. Possibly “weird”. Maybe even “creepy”. Women want a man who is a little bit different from other men in their eyes, but not too much different lest their sistahs make fun of her for hooking a loser.

Now that you are married, you are known to be “a catch” (social proofing) and so having waited to have sex means that you are more likely to be faithful to your wife, which is a definite plus.

Does this mean that women talk one way and act another? Yep. Does that make them hypocrites? Well, to many men the answer is clearly “yes”, to women the answer is more ambiguous – “I meant what I said when I said it, but now that I see what I said doesn’t lead to what I want, I don’t mean it any more”.

Do you and your wife ever encounter these other women socially? I think that could be entertaining, possibly hugely so, but not everyone might agree.

Sadly the truth. As a genetic oldfashioned romantic, I was horrified when I discovered early versions of “game” (it wasn’t called that 10 years ago) and realized that it was the truth. I then faced the terrible choice of gaming to get a Christian wife, or being honest and staying alone. I stayed honest – and eventually, to my happy surprise, it paid off.

a man who is with a woman is already “socially proofed” because he clearly has some value to at least one woman.

True. As soon as I got engaged I became a chick magnet! Literally the next day, women started hitting on me. Strangers, too — not just women who knew me and knew I was engaged. I guess my whole demeanor must have changed somehow, once I’d closed the deal. I also had a couple of women express regret at missing their chance at me. After 10 years of marriage, gray hair, etc, I get hit on more than ever.

Now that you are married, you are known to be “a catch” (social proofing) and so having waited to have sex means that you are more likely to be faithful to your wife, which is a definite plus.

Her complaints are more along the lines of dipshit Christian boys flirting with her then pulling out the “girlfriend” card when she responds.

Strange. I thought that was something only cruel women (including “Christians”) did to men. To be led on, to be brazenly flirted with, to see the pupillary responses and body language all lining up, and — just when you’re ready to ask her out — to be told, “I have a boyfriend”, or worse, “I don’t believe in dating” (the IKDG hypocrisy)… it’s really quite annoying. I’m sure girls don’t like it either — I just never imagined that they’d be victims of it.

Driscoll is just Hugo Schwyzer with a pulpit, a guilt-ridden self-flagellating alpha male who’s had the world at his fingertips and thinks all the other guys must have had that too

That’s a really excellent summary of everything that’s wrong with the perceptual world of both Driscoll and Schwyzer. Their experiences are true *for them* but not for the vast majority of men.

As a genetic oldfashioned romantic, I was horrified when I discovered early versions of “game” (it wasn’t called that 10 years ago) and realized that it was the truth.

Somewhere, here or at Badger’s most likely, Deti commented once that upon learning Game he had the distinct feeling of “sleeping with the enemy”. I know that feeling very well myself. But the alternative is worse in the long run. Pretending all that hogwash about “more moral” and “naturally monogamous” is the truth only leads to trouble, heartache, and pain. But it is kind of like something out of a horror movie for those men who lived with the lies a long time – llke pulling back the sheets and finding she has tentacles instead of arms. It’s that jarring.

I then faced the terrible choice of gaming to get a Christian wife, or being honest and staying alone. I stayed honest – and eventually, to my happy surprise, it paid off.

You did the right thing for you, but don’t kid yourself, you need Game. Because at certain levels, all women really are “like that”.

As soon as I got engaged I became a chick magnet! Literally the next day, women started hitting on me. Strangers, too — not just women who knew me and knew I was engaged. I guess my whole demeanor must have changed somehow, once I’d closed the deal. I also had a couple of women express regret at missing their chance at me.

Social proofing is powerful, and don’t kid yourself, some of those women were hoping you’d cheat with them. At the micro level, women compete viciously with each other for men- their biology demands it, and taking a proven man away from another woman is a triumph on multiple levels. Don’t forget what the female hindbrain wants from men: sperm and resources.

<i. After 10 years of marriage, gray hair, etc, I get hit on more than ever.

We age like wine, not cottage cheese. And I don’t know about you, but I find that Churchian women are just as prone to drop IOI’s on me as any others. Because AWALT.

“I meant what I said when I said it, but now that I see what I said doesn’t lead to what I want, I don’t mean it any more”.

In another context this translates as “Rape!”

Yes it does, but in the context of married / LTR shit testing, that is the gist of more than one disagreement. The problem for women, as I pointed out to Suz, is women now have the habit of shit testing to destruction, then wondering what happened. Again I speculate that daughters of divorce will be more prone to this, given their known insecurities.

I’m pretty sure you’ve heard this already, if you’ve been married for 10 years.

With regard to the other woemn…I guess you probably aren’t into schadefreude, then.

Deti commented once that upon learning Game he had the distinct feeling of “sleeping with the enemy”

Yeah, that’s part of why I couldn’t bring myself to use it, except defensively to some extent. To game a woman to the altar would be conquering an enemy, someone to whom I could never show my true self. How lonely.

Pretending all that hogwash about “more moral” and “naturally monogamous” is the truth only leads to trouble, heartache, and pain.

Well… I never believed women were “more moral” (or less so) than men, etc. However I did have the expectation that devout Christian women would be more moral and more monogamous than nonChristian women. Some are… many aren’t.

With regard to the other woemn…I guess you probably aren’t into schadefreude, then.

Where does the bible even say that a man having sex before marriage is a sin? Yeah that might be the message of the Catholic church and some protestant churches, but where is that message in the bible??

That Mark Discroll turd is unhealthy to any free thinking male. My advise to those ‘few men’ would be to walk out. Make a statement and be heard, but don’t just sit there and take it. That’s the worst thing you can do.

Where does the bible even say that a man having sex before marriage is a sin? Yeah that might be the message of the Catholic church and some protestant churches, but where is that message in the bible??

Marriage is honorable among all, but fornicators and adulterers will be judged by God.
Hebrews 13:4

The double standard seems to be that women in churches can be slutty, because they are precious daughters of the King. Woe betide any man that demurs to date them, because we know that men are evil, selfish, irresponsible sinners that can only be redeemed by constant watchfulness on their behalf by pastors, accountability groups, and significant others…?

I wrestled long and needlessly the question of dating the reclaimed sluts. I need not have bothered. As has been observed elsewhere, many of those girls had been tainted by their 5 minutes of alpha. Normal betas and deltas were never enough after their carousel rides.

Two decades on, many of them are divorced, some partnered, some are single. Of the latter group, career became a significant focus, be it secular or otherwise. And still, they pine for an alpha, and become increasingly crazy and hateful because of course, in their minds it is men who will not commit.

Little wonder so many men leave the churches in such an environment. . .

@Anonymous Reader – That is all extremely good insight. I made a list of things I need in a woman based on it – you did a lot of my work for me though and I deeply appreciate it. You had a very thoughtful, helpful response. This is what I have so far:

Devout Christian
Conservative
Loyal
Pro-military
Supportive
Traditional and family oriented. Willing to stay home with the fruit of my loins 🙂
Articulate and intelligent
Able to keep a schedule and self-sufficient.
Very responsible
Good impulse control
She should have hobbies and stuff that will keep her off Facebook all day.

Looks aren’t too important, as long as I find her attractive. I added “devout Christian” because I don’t want “CINO’s.” I think I need to get out of the Evangelical church and find something else. Perhaps the Catholic, Orthodox or maybe Southern Baptist churches (ton of ’em where I’m going soon anyway). I need to figure out which I believe is best, preferably soon. I don’t want to cultivate any new hobbies purely to meet women, because that would be kind of veering off my own path and I my leisure time is precious, but perhaps I could find something along the lines you mentioned that I like.

@Van Rooinek – You seem to have encountered the same problem I did. I’m glad you mentioned that story because some people think it’s peculiar to me, and it’s clearly not. Other guys have had the same problem. I think it’s common. Many “church girls” want to live a totally secular life with impunity and use church to frame themselves in their own minds, and the minds of others as well, as “good girls.” They’re good even though they ride the carousel, have one night stands, and sleep with their boyfriends without regret because they dress conservatively on Sunday morning, sing some Jesus songs, and posts some Bible verses out of context on Facebook. Church sluts are the worst because they’re self-righteous sluts. They still think they’re innocent and pure.

This is not meant to trash on Christian women in general. I have met a great deal of GREAT Christian women too – just they had husbands or boyfriends (who were usually good dudes and are close friends of mine).

You missed the most important criteria: her ability to be led.
If she has that trait, many of the other things become immaterial since you can lead her to those (assuming you possess benevolent masculine dominance). Keep in mind that many “Devout Christian” women have an ingrained belief in female moral superiority and thus you may find it difficult to be the head of the family.

“Somewhere, here or at Badger’s most likely, Deti commented once that upon learning Game he had the distinct feeling of “sleeping with the enemy”.”

It was something like that. It was a feeling of wariness in looking at my own wife, a sense of “I know who and what you really are now. And some of it is downright ugly and sinister.” And then you live with your guard up, prepared for the worst.

That passes and morphs into a sense of calm. You now know that if you really have to do it, that if push came to shove, that if your marriage came to an end, you would survive and even thrive. “If the unthinkable happens and she leaves and divorces me, I will still be OK.”

I’ve said this before many times. The more profound feeling I had was anger and bewilderment that no one — not ONE person — had taught me any truth about intergender relationships. I stumbled onto Roissy at age 42. Literally everything I had learned in the previous 30 years about women, dating, relationships and sex was not only wrong, but absolutely 180 degrees away from correct. There wasn’t a shred of truth in anything that my parents, teachers, pastors and other authorities taught me about these things.

My head spins when I think about:
1. years wasted on women completely unworthy for a date, much less a relationship.
2. thousands of dollars wasted on supplicating to unworthy women.
3. the worthy women I could have dated but passed over in favor of seeking relationships with unworthy sluts
4. the opportunities and friendships lost from pursuing unworthy women
5. the grinding dryness of inability to get even a date (this is something that women just Do. Not. Get.)
6. the repeated nuclear rejections and LJBFs
7. the time and effort wasted on Churchian women.
8. the complete inability to identify, address and see through games, emotional outbursts, shit tests, pity ploys, and silent treatments

But the worst part was looking back on the seemingly endless parade of damaged women. The entitlement princesses. The status whores. The crazy girls. The bottom feeder sluts trying to pass themselves off as “nice church girls.” The chatty girls who go on and on about the most banal, inane subjects, who cannot remain silent, whose historical frames of reference begin around 1995, and whose intellectual curiosity begins and ends with all things Kardashian.

The clingy needy girls who can’t think their ways out of wet paper sacks. The attention whores. The “Daddy issues” girls. The alcoholics and problem drinkers. The, ahem, *plus-sized* ladies with insanely overinflated egos acting like divas, stuffing themselves into clothes they cannot wear and yet acting as though they should command the attentions of every man in the place.

The used up, washed up carousel riders with baby rabies, double digit partner counts, Petri dish pelvises with who-knows-what organisms residing therein, and cigarettes dangling from their mouths as they tell you to f*ck off. Or worse, the used up carousel rider who looks to you as her last, best hope, all while she screams toward The Wall at Mach 2.

As you look back, you know you weren’t her first choice. Hell, you weren’t her second, third or even 15th choice. You are not even Plan B. You, sir, are probably Plan P or Q. Plan A was Bad Boy/Garage Band drummer/Harley rider/Frat boy/ Football Star. He used up.her best years while you were standing by the beer keg, slowly drinking yourself into a stupor while watching girls like her make out with, and go home with, the men she REALLY wanted.

Any father who does not teach his son game is doing his son a grave, awful disservice. You have to teach your son more than just “Keep your d*ck in your pants.”

Of course, with perhaps half of American boys not living with their fathers, I might just have identified why we have a problem.

Well… in my case, being raised in an intact home with an oldfashioned Dad & Mom, the nonfunctional relationship stuff I picked up was not “effiminate” at all. Far from it. It was old fashioned manhood, at its purest… which is what modern women hate most of all.

PS… It was old fashioned manhood, at its purest… which is what modern women hate most of all. …. and apparently in generations past, it worked just fine. Feminism is eternally wrong, but oldfashioned manhood used to be what women craved the most.

@7Man – I agree, submissiveness is important. I’ll add the “ability to be lead” to my list. I also agree about the devout Christian thing, but I would define a devout Christian woman as one who understands the Bible and does not have some misguided belief in female moral superiority. Of course, I’m not expecting perfection, as that’s impossible, but so far I have a good list of traits to look for. I’m also kind of taking a step back, I realized I don’t really care if I don’t get married for another 10 years, and the men in my family age real slow and live real long, so I’ll still be able to pull a woman in her 20’s for a long time. I’m just going to practice my game on lots of women and hopefully I come across a good one, rather than just saving my game for the ones I think are good. This should keep my skills sharp and ready for when a good prospect comes around.

My reaction to figuring all this out wasn’t disappointing and I embraced it all wholeheartedly. It was like finally reading something that made sense out of all I experienced. I didn’t think learning game or about how women think and act was as depressing or “nihilism inspiring” as many do. I was glad to learn that I could kind of be an ass and do whatever I want and it would get me more women (and I did) than supplicating. Betas live a sad life – they try so hard when not trying and living your own damn life is what works. Knowing that looking out for #1 was the key to success was not disappointing at all. Knowing that I could spend all my time doing MMA no matter how much it pissed off a girlfriend, or that I could go do whatever I wanted with 0 concern for her input was liberating. I got my little bro to join the Army today. He told me he had to get his girlfriend’s advice, and I told him he was being a pussy, and that as a man he needs to be 100% independent of her. She’s a sidekick, not an equal. He got that same grin on his face I had when I first heard such things, and bam, he was signing his life away like a pro.

That’s the heart of the matter. Which reminds me, Uncle Elmer has from time to time, in various places, touted the usefulness of ballroom dancing. I can see one thing: a woman who lets you lead on the dance floor may or may not let you lead off of it, but a woman who won’t let you lead on the dance floor is all but certain to fight your leadership in other ways. Plus it is an older, civilized art that is pleasant in and of itself. I probably should look into it myself.

Bob, I am happy to be of service to you and any other man who finds my ideas useful.

I was talking to a man the other day. His son just turned 11, is the youngest child and only boy. This man was reflecting that he was the youngest child and only boy in his family as well. He observed that he never learned much leadership growing up. He was always the “little brother”. So when he was an adult, and his father was very sick, and his mother was panicking, and his sister was drinking too much, he didn’t really have any reference, any training, to step up and lead the family. He felt like he’d let them all down. But as we talked, it came out that he really had never been taught how to be the head of a family, so he just had to fake it, and on the whole he hadn’t done as bad a job as maybe he thought. And he came from an intact family. What about the boys and young men, as you say, growing up with no father?

One of the things that this amorphous blob of a group of angry men is going to have to do is help younger men learn how to lead. In my opinion, leadership starts in the mirror; I have to lead that guy to do right, and not do wrong, then I can lead other people.

Marriage is honorable among all, but fornicators and adulterers will be judged by God.
Hebrews 13:4

That seems a pretty thin reed to base the Christian church’s centuries of inveighing againt pre-marital fornication. It’s also in the Old Testament.

In contrast to fornication, adultery is condemned throughout the bible, that is the adultery of wives is condemned. Not of husbands, unless they had sex with another man’s wife, in which case he was guilty of adultery as well. Christianity and Judaism are not gender neutral despite what one might think listening to today’s preachers.

In contrast to fornication, adultery is condemned throughout the bible, that is the adultery of wives is condemned. Not of husbands, unless they had sex with another man’s wife, in which case he was guilty of adultery as well.

I’ve encountered this flawed exigesis before. Rather that go through all the passages, Old and New, and have you spit them back at me with your own preferred spin, I will simply note this:

(1) (3) The passages on premarital sex, that moderns are so eager to reinterpret away so as to exempt men (ummm… with whom are they supposed to HAVE the premarital sex?), have been traditionally read and understood as confining sex til marriage throughout all the history of the texts, all 2000 years of Christian history, right up til now:

(2) Sex creates children. That’s what it’s for. Even with modern contraception, children can still occur. Throughout all time, it has been recognized that, on the whole, children are far better cared for, if they are raised with both a father as well as a mother in a stable family unit. (Far better behaved, too… there’s a reason why “bastard” evolved into an epithet for those practicing bad behavior.) For the best outcome of the children, therefore, reserving conception (and therefore sex) for marriage is the obvious and logically inescapable way of ensuring that as many children as possible, be born in the most advantageous circumstances. Could God FAIL to issue such a command, and still be a good and wise God? Or is it more likely the the traditional intrepretation is right after all?

Have a look at the lives of women you know who’ve gotten knocked up outside of wedlock, and get back to me.

(3) Sex spreads diseases. Some tribes became extinct (Tasmanians) or nearly so (Maori) when their promiscuity encountered sexually transmitted diseases from the outside world, resulting in widespread sterility. Even today, with antibiotics, condoms, etc, we have a fertility destroying chlamydia epidemic, not to mention other diseases. The one and only obvious and logically inescapable way of protecting yourself, is avoiding all sex outside marriage. Could God FAIL to issue such a command, and still be a good and wise God? Or is it more likely the the traditional intrepretation is right after all?

Christianity and Judaism are not gender neutral despite what one might think listening to today’s preachers.

No, they aren’t. The husband is the head of the wife. Men are required to lead the church. And in the OT (and in NT times under very limited circumstances), polygyny — one husband with several wives — has been tolerated, but never the reverse.

That still doesn’t alter the fact that both sexes are forbidden to have sex outside marriage. In the words of a famous movie character: Search your feelings, you know it to be true… .

Van Rooinek really wins this argument. Fornication is obviously a sin. I wish it wasn’t, but what we wish is irrelevant if we claim to be Christian. Additionally, just because the Bible is patriarchal, it doesn’t mean men are free to fornicate while women are not. Men can only fornicate with a fornicator. You cannot complain about women being sluts if you’re promoting male fornication, because males of course need women to fornicate with.

The Driscoll alpha act on display here is designed to tickle the ‘gina tingle while smashing down as beta every other man in the room. Condemnation in full display. The real problem I have with it is that the “Pastor” is undermining the relationship of everyone who is sitting in that room. He frames every other male and dominates them in front of their women. (And he absolutely knows that he is doing this). Nice going pal.

I’m getting tired of hearing about how Christian men need to “man up” and marry the used up sluts.

Uh, no.

Message to Christian women: You need to “woman up”. You need to stop sleeping around, develop pleasant, optimistic personalities, marry good Christian men, submit to your husbands, quit your jobs so that other good Christian men can get working again, and start having lots of babies.

Driscoll is actually what most pastors want to be. Most however try the softer white knight approach, thinking that THAT makes the tingler tinger. They end up being useful idiots, tools.

If someone took the aggressive approach of Driscoll, yet directed his testosterone geyser at the ladies half the time, he may actually do some good. Just to get things into balance he should not speak at or to men for about 20 years, THEN start preaching to both men and women.

Message to Christian women: You need to “woman up”. You need to stop sleeping around, develop pleasant, optimistic personalities, marry good Christian men, submit to your husbands, quit your jobs so that other good Christian men can get working again, and start having lots of babies.

Thanks, vR. I’m really, really tired of hearing Christian pastors, commentators and others shrieking at me, and men in general, to “man up”. Even more insidious than the video games complaint and the “marry the ‘reformed sluts'” exhortation is the new “Man up 2.0”, which, boiled to its essentials, seems to be:

“You men need to man up and be more attractive to women! You need to learn some Game so you can be ready for marriage and marry a woman when she’s ready to get married!”

My problem with this is an implication that men, and Game, exist to serve women — specifically, for the ultimate end of providing husbands for women. No consideration is given to the man’s goals, wants, needs, desires, hopes or dreams. No consideration is given to the idea that a man has certain things he wants from his life, from a woman, from marriage. It is simply a given that he is not a man until he is sacked up enough to get a woman interested in him enough to consider marrying him, and until he is provisioning for a woman (who might or might not actually love him or want him).

Even more insidious than the video games complaint and the “marry the ‘reformed sluts’” exhortation is the new “Man up 2.0″, which, boiled to its essentials, seems to be:

“You men need to man up and be more attractive to women! You need to learn some Game so you can be ready for marriage and marry a woman when she’s ready to get married!”

My problem with this is an implication that men, and Game, exist to serve women

Exactly, which is what PMAFT and others have been talking about when it comes to “Game2.0/Man-Up2.0”. It’s being turned *against* men as a tool that makes men better tools for women. This a danger that is inherent in Game, in my view, if it becomes mainstream.

Thanks, vR. I’m really, really tired of hearing Christian pastors, commentators and others shrieking at me, and men in general, to “man up”.

Again, Amen, Deti.

I DID “man up”… at age 14. It was then that I decided… with no religious input whatsoever (that came later in life), not to go “all the way”, as we called it then, till marriage — and to evaluate and date girls solely on the critera of, “could I marry her?”. Manning up at an early age, SHOULD have gotten me married by 19, if Driscoll were right. In fact, I had to wait til my late 30s.

Granted some men do behave as Driscoll condemns, but there are many, many more who do exactly what he says to do…. only to be stomped on by women as a reward.

You can’t make this stuff up. On the one hand, you have the obvious: the rise of hypergamy, the increased competition among women for the sexy men, and the impact this has on sexuality. On the other hand, you have the same old nonsense about love notes, poems and flowers. The same bad advice being given again and again and again. I honestly think that women don’t know what attracts them and turns them on, or turn a blind eye to it for some reason, all leading to the perpetual blue pill worldview.

Women don’t want to admit what attracts them and turns them on. They don’t want to admit that:
1. They have gina tingles, or that they have sometimes followed their tingles. Every woman who has ever discussed her sex life with me (and there have been many) over the past 20-odd years has confessed a ONS or SNL. She’s either banged a man a few hours after meeting him, or she let a cad pump & dump her, fully knowing what was about to happen. (And I do mean EVERY woman who has been willing to talk about it.) “I just couldn’t help myself, he was so beautiful!” “He swept me off my feet!” “I was so turned on, I just had to have him!” I’m talking all kinds of women — Christian women, nonbelievers, uberbitch lawyers, teachers, housewives, beautiful women, homely women, everything from 3s up to HB 9s.

2. They want to submit to a worthy man. She will willingly submit her body, career aspirations, ambitions and life goals to those of a man she can look up to.

3. They want to be dominated in bed. Rough sex and being told what to do in the bedroom is a turn on.

4. There are some high-T women who need more alpha than other women and who get into sex more than other women.

5. She gets horny, she wants sex, she fantasizes, and she has (or at least wants) orgasms.

I am convinced some of this is the antislut defense. A woman’s admission she likes sex or has had SNLs or ONSs is tantamount to an admission of sluthood. She wants the sex a slut can have — she just doesn’t want to look like a slut.

Some of it, I think, is the Mary complex — the insistence that women are good, pure vessels who exist solely to be hoisted onto pedestals. A woman’s sexuality is immaculate and good, while a man’s sexuality is dirty and bad. Any suggestion that a woman’s relationship or sexual motives are ulterior, sinister or self-serving is an accusation of sluthood and an affront to God’s highest creation.

I was link chasing from that cnn article and found a comment under an article, Oh…Em…Gee (flicks hair)….look at the depth of insight, the self awareness, the cutting edge truths this girl discovered in her, uh……research project:
———————–
From *Jen*
“I actually did a research project on whether the media influences expectations for marriage in college. The jury is out, basically, but I think the most interesting thing I found was a study stating that happiness in marriage (and relationships in general) is largely based on a person’s outlook, which generally falls into two categories: The Princess Category & The Hard Work Category (my titles). People who expect to meet The One, fall in love, and never have to work on it fall in love quicker & harder, but are more disappointed in the end when the relationship doesn’t measure up to that expectation. People who believe that successful relationships are built on hard work and not fate may not fall in love as hard, but were found to be more content in said relationship. Interesting tidbits to think about.”””
———————————-

Oh man, if people knew this, cats and dogs would lay together Im tellin ya people

detiI am convinced some of this is the antislut defense. A woman’s admission she likes sex or has had SNLs or ONSs is tantamount to an admission of sluthood. She wants the sex a slut can have — she just doesn’t want to look like a slut.

Standard line from women and especially teenaged girls regarding any sex: “It just happened!”, presumably a meteorite dropped from the sky and knocked her legs open…

A woman’s sexuality is immaculate and good, while a man’s sexuality is dirty and bad.

I first read a description of the male orgasm as “animalistic” in the 1980’s, but it probably was a quote from some 1970’s 2nd wave feminist. However I’ve little doubt that one could find similar texts in the Victorian era.

The experiments involving showing images to women while recording vaginal blood flow & moisture convinced me that women’s intellectualizing about what turns them on is just rationalization in many cases – their minds say “Oh, I don’t like that” but the hindbrain says “yes! more!”. None of this is news to anyone who’s studied Game, surely? I mean, c’mon, the evo-bio trail leading to women’s more fluid sexuality ought to be clear to anyone who is willing to look.

Seems to me that church youth group leaders should be promoting early marriage. College women should seriously think about marrying before graduation, for example.

That feeds my theory that there has only ever been one self help book written, and since then its been rewritten thousands of times and labeled and packaged differently, with devotees grabbing it and going wild eyed.
There is a gal on the forum I spend some time who has grown enamoured with this guy named Firestone….and she prefaces things with “Firestone says”…..for which I cannot take her seriously

I am convinced some of this is the antislut defense. A woman’s admission she likes sex or has had SNLs or ONSs is tantamount to an admission of sluthood. She wants the sex a slut can have — she just doesn’t want to look like a slut.

Possibly, but still. Why keep telling guys you want love notes, poems and flowers when you, yourself, know this doesn’t turn you on at all. There is some measure of self-delusion going on here, like was evident in the NYT-reported sex response studies (which generated a lot of defensive comments from women readers, predictably). It’s as if they *want* to think, *themselves*, that they are turned on by flowers and love notes, when in fact they are turned on by what we all know they are turned on by, and that’s that.

But beyond that, the sheer unwillingness of almost everyone in the blue pill haze to see what is objectively happening is pretty mystifying. I mean the article itself describes it aptly: the men women want are not lifting a finger and the women are coming to them, qualifying themselves to them. And this is seen as being “new”. Well, yes, but the rather obvious point is that a smallish number of men can command this kind of competition from a largish body of women — and yet this is going completely unnoticed and uncommented. The average joe schlub playing World of Warcraft doesn’t have women qualifying themselves to him. It’s the guy that every woman wants, and, frankly, why would he have to do more than show up in this world of overdriven hypergamy?

It’s just fascinating how in the dark most of the mainstream seems to be about what is objectively happening in this area.

„Exactly, which is what PMAFT and others have been talking about when it comes to “Game2.0/Man-Up2.0″. It’s being turned *against* men as a tool that makes men better tools for women. This a danger that is inherent in Game, in my view, if it becomes mainstream.”

Isn’t this already water under the bridge, really? Game has been rapidly going mainstream for years and none of the PUAs getting mainstream acceptance – and thus exposure – has ever questioned feminist orthodoxy. In fact, Neil Strauss openly supports feminism. And anything that fails to erode the feminist status quo is effectively a tool against men.

“Why keep telling guys you want love notes, poems and flowers when you, yourself, know this doesn’t turn you on at all.”

Well, broadly speaking it does turn women on, doesn’t it? As long as they’re already attracted to that man, of course, and as long as this is done in small doses. Women look for signs of commitment from men they find attractive.

It seems obvious to me that the reason female hypergamy is never discussed in the mainstream in any way is the realization among the upper classes that widespread male knowledge of female hypergamy would be extremely corrosive to social stability, at least in the long run. Pretty simple, really.

“There is some measure of self-delusion going on here *** It’s as if they *want* to think, *themselves*, that they are turned on by flowers and love notes, when in fact they are turned on by what we all know they are turned on by ***.”

Yes, precisely. If she tells herself that flowers and love notes turn her on while subconsciously knowing she wants to screw the bad boy, she can then claim the moral and sexual high ground. She’s a “good perrrrrrson”. She’s not a slut. She’s a chaste, moral, “higher” creature and she deserves a “nice guy who will treat [her] right”, even though she wants to bang Bad Boy McThuggerson.

“But beyond that, the sheer unwillingness of almost everyone in the blue pill haze to see what is objectively happening is pretty mystifying.”

This gets us to the “secret world” Hollenhund wrote about a few threads back. In the dating world, the alphas and the women know the real score. They know how the SMP really works. There is an effort afoot to purposely keep betas in the dark about the red pill. The more I read about the SMP and learn about Game, the more this starts to ring true. I remember my epiphany moments when reading heartiste (then Roissy) about a year ago. So many concepts were being explained so cogently. I knew of these things yet could not put them into words before. The “secret world” meme really resonates.

Brendant’s just fascinating how in the dark most of the mainstream seems to be about what is objectively happening in this area.

But the alternative would mean admitting that many “truths” about women are pretty lies. How many magazines or newspapers would that sell? And more to the point, how many people – both men and women – really can face that truth? Look at how many men resist “putting on the glasses”, and it’s in their interest to deal in reality rather than fantasy. As for women, well, look at their friends for clues as to what they value.

The reality of women and their psyche has been pretty systematically covered up for at least generations. It should be more of a surprise that any of us have shed the pretty lies, than that most people paid to write words still believe them.

Well, broadly speaking it does turn women on, doesn’t it? As long as they’re already attracted to that man, of course, and as long as this is done in small doses. Women look for signs of commitment from men they find attractive.

Not really a turn-on, though. Appreciated as a sign of commitment if she is already turned on, but not, in itself, a turn-on. And, in my experience, once commitment is established more or less, these things are turn-on killers for women — like the female equivalent of a boner killer, really. My point, of course, is that they do not attract, so they have rather little value in the early stages of courtship, which is what I think the CNN article was trying to address.

Well, broadly speaking it does turn women on, doesn’t it? As long as they’re already attracted to that man, of course, and as long as this is done in small doses. Women look for signs of commitment from men they find attractive.

Too coordinated for me. I agree more with Anonymous Reader — people don’t want to believe these things about the women in their lives -> their mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, wives. It’s too threatening for this to be true. Understandable. The world would be much nicer if women were truly moral paragons who did no evil, and we only had to worry about oafish, lazy men who are evil by nature. In other words, things would be nicer, more liveable, if women really were naturally lifetime monogamous and loyal, and all that jazz — so there’s some incentive to keep believing the pretty lie. Still, it takes a pretty concerted effort, I think, at times, in light of what is increasingly being reported in the media – just the facts, I mean.

Some of the media silence is probably because masculine men who know that women buckle under dominance displays are unlikely to become journalists these days.

Also, I suspect the truth about women’s instincts is unpopular because it seems too mechanistic, deterministic and biological. Too close to the despised ideas about sociobiology and instinct. The idea does not fit with the progressive narrative that human nature is completely malleable.

“I mean the article itself describes it aptly: the men women want are not lifting a finger and the women are coming to them, qualifying themselves to them. And this is seen as being “new”. Well, yes, but the rather obvious point is that a smallish number of men can command this kind of competition from a largish body of women — and yet this is going completely unnoticed and uncommented.”

Of course, hypergamy is nothing new, nor is it new that a small number of men get large numbers of women fighting over them. What is new is that the competition is taking place out in the open and overtly. This is a result of completely untrammeled hypergamy, I think. Women don’t feel the need to restrain their statements, their remarks, their conduct or their treatment of others. Social and religious conventions and sanctions no longer constrain anything American women do. Even the most average Jane, 30 pounds overweight, sporting her muffin top and her junk-in-the-trunk, a 3/10 on a good day, thinks she can do anything she want with anyone she wants, anywhere she wants. She believes she has the absolute right to say anything she wants, to whomever she wants, wherever and whenever she wants.

It’s not noticed or commented upon because, I think, (1) feminism is so shot through all of society that no one would ever call this what it is: unrestrained hypergamous women acting like animals; and (2) most people don’t want to know the truth. Feminism has so skewed the social order that any attempts to restrain what it wants is “sexist” and men trying to keep women from being “true to themselves”. Any questioning of the social order in which women get whatever they want is met with shaming and ridicule.

Yes, it seems I was off-base. Strictly speaking, that sort of stuff indeed does not attract, certainly not in the early stages of courtship. Now that I thought about it a bit more, I’d add it never increases the sexual attraction on the women’s part. What I’d say is that a woman may get into a situation where she’s looking for signs of commitment in a relationship in order to feel more secure – when she’s pregnant or has small children, for example, or she’s economically dependent on her mate. But yes, strictly speaking it won’t make him seem more attractive sexually, it’ll only make him seem like a better mate (for the time being, of course). Needless to say, making a woman feel more secure in a relationship is a pretty bad idea if she’s not in such a situation in the first place.

I’m sure you meant to respond to a different comment of mine in the second half, but anyway: I think willful male self-deception and ignorance may play a part as well, but a rather limited one. First of all, self-deception seems to be more of a female than male trait when it comes to gender relations. Men don’t have hamsters after all. When you’re already deeply invested in a woman in one way or another, I can imagine it’s difficult to digest the truth about female hypergamy due to all the wishful thinking that developed. But subconscious self-deception? Doesn’t seem realistic to me. Female hypergamy isn’t the most pleasant thing a beta male can hear about, but would most men see it as ’evil’? I doubt that. I don’t think it’d make them see their female relatives in a vastly different light. Men normally face harsher truths in life. What WOULD happen is beta males rejecting the idea of marriage or LTR en masse after learning about female hypergamy. Needless to say, pretty much everyone else in society is deeply invested in them NOT doing that, for reasons I’m sure don’t need explaining here.

What IS going on, I think, and has been pretty much accepted as self-evident truth in this corner of the Internet, is that many men have become cognitively and psychologically resistant to accepting basic facts about female sexuality due to the relentless betaization, emasculation and manipulation they have undergone at the hands of their feminist overlords, be they self-proclaimed or de facto feminists (i.e. tradcons). This may count as self-deception, of course. But the problem in this case isn’t the self-deception itself but the manipulators responsible for the brainwashing which causes the self-deception in the first place.

“My point, of course, is that they do not attract, so they have rather little value in the early stages of courtship, ”

They are expected as signs of tribute. In the old days, women actually behaved with grace and appreciated gifts, and enjoyed giving and receiving them, and it was very special, a sign of love and commitment, to receive a nice gift on occasion. Back when they were grateful to have a husband who loved them and cared for them. Today it is tribute received without grace by narcissists.

There are women who are relatively innocent and capable of love. The “red pill” does apply to all women, but it applies especially to modern western women, and modernized women in general. Don’t imagine for a second that women’s psychology hasn’t been seriously affected and their moral sensibilities transformed in this era. The media wouldn’t go to the trouble it does if the techniques don’t work. They can lower the birth rates in regions of Brazil with soap operas, it’s a proven, observable effect.

Speaking of differences between American women and women overseas, I thought expression on the women’s faces in these links is revealing. Compare the white American woman’s cold and rather vacant expression with the more inviting and friendly expressions of the other women:

Yes. And men are still being taught to give them. Up to about 50 years ago, a gift was given as appreciation and esteem. A man paid for his date for several reasons: (1) he was expected to be able to pay his own way and for a woman as a form of social proof. He is proving to her and to her father that he can support her and has the means to do so; (2) she is less able to pay than he; (3) pure chivalry. The man pays to “protect” the woman.

Given today’s modern social structure and young women outearning young men, there is simply no reason to give gifts or pay a woman’s way. It is pure tribute, given merely because she is the woman and the gatekeeper to sex. But men are the gatekeepers to the commitment and investment that women say they want from men.

So don’t pay. Don’t invest until she shows she’s worthy of investment. And keep it brief. No more than an hour or two. Early dates should be simple an inexpensive: drinks. You buy yours, she buys hers. A rented video at her place or yours. Go for a walk. Go to a museum or an art gallery. Tell her to meet you at a bar or a club. You’re making food; tell her to come over if she wants. And after one or two hours, end the date and leave, or you tell her you have other things to do and thanks for coming, maybe I’ll see you again. Don’t take her on a date where you drop $50 to $100 on a meal. Don’t take her to a movie at a theater and drop $30 to $40.

The composite photos on that site are fascinating. A few thoughts:
–They are all quite good looking, men and women alike.
— The composite white American woman is too thin and too attractive.

I live in a small city in the midwest. I was out and about last weekend with my kids. I don’t get out too much. The parade of human dysfunction was fascinating.

I noted several things about most of the women I saw between ages 17 and 50:

— They are fat. I’m not talking a little chubby. I’m talking between 20 to 50 pounds overweight and up.
— They have terribly unflattering haircuts. Their hair is too short or not done up in an attractive or flattering way.
— They don’t wear makeup or don’t know how to wear makeup. Their facial complexions are monstrous. Their faces are pasty and clammy, or Jersey Shore fake tan orange.
–They walk and carry themselves like men. They don’t walk so much as shuffle, amble, shamble and plod.
— They dress for sh!t. They wear t-shirts, sweat pants, flip flops and headbands.
–They have mean, hard, angry-as-hell default facial expressions.
–The men with them are either douchebags with logo t-shirts, baseball caps and bling; or quiet mousy omega types.
— They talk as loud as they want and say what they want. Profligate profanity is de rigueur.

This is frankly disgusting. No self-respecting man should get his checkbook or credit card out for these nasties.

I find it incredibly interesting that men sleep with their girlfriends and then feel entitled to marry virgins.

Since such men create the kind of women that don’t ‘stick’ (sluts), those are the only kind of women they deserve as wives.

I will never marry one of these men! I will not reward you for making sluts of my sisters. Go and marry the sluts you’ve made and deserve.

Driscoll is right when he says that men who sleep with their girlfriends should marry them. He is infact a true Christian who did the biblical thing by marrying Grace. But you won’t understand it, especially if you’re ungratefully married to a virtuous woman who was silly enough to marry you.

I find it incredibly interesting that men sleep with their girlfriends and then feel entitled to marry virgins.

I agree that a man who is engaged to a woman who was a virgin, and she gave him her virginity post engagement really can’t complain that she isn’t a virgin on their wedding day. However, you seem to be then assuming the groom is also responsible for the actions of all of the other men the bride has sex with prior to committing to him. This makes absolutely no sense.

Driscoll is right when he says that men who sleep with their girlfriends should marry them. He is infact a true Christian who did the biblical thing by marrying Grace. But you won’t understand it, especially if you’re ungratefully married to a virtuous woman who was silly enough to marry you.

This and your comment above denies the fact that women are deliberately waiting to marry while focusing on career and having sex with the most attractive men they can snag in the interim. These women are almost never losing their virginity to men who have promised to marry them, and just as relevant, to men they had promised to marry. This is part of the larger conflation of marriage with serial monogamy, in this case you are conflating “girlfriend” with fiancée or wife. Your point and Driscoll’s point as well is essentially that women who don’t require and offer commitment before having sex somehow deserve commitment because they agreed to casual sex. It is sheer nonsense.

For the record, I am very happy to be married to my wife and she is proud of the fact that she hasn’t been with another man than me.

Oh Dear God.
Lola (and I SO hope you’re not my online pal by the same name) no man ever made a woman into a slut. EVERY slut is a slut by her own choice. Do you find it interesting that women sleep with hot sexy players and then feel entitled to marry good stable providers?

Driscoll is an arrogant pig who exhorts men to marry women he wouldn’t touch with gloves on (not in public anyway.) He told the world how shocked and appalled he was that his wife wasn’t a virgin, but apparently such standards are too good for his followers. You see, Driscoll thinks women are stupid and weak, and they can’t help being sluts. And he expects men to do their duty and take pity on these helpless creatures who were never taught how to commit. And he expects men to humbly give up half their net worth, half of their future income, AND THEIR CHILDREN, a few years down the line when these women get tired of pretending to be committed (because being slutty was WAY more fun.) If you are a women, I’m not surprised that you agree with him.

“I agree that a man who is engaged to a woman who was a virgin, and she gave him her virginity post engagement really can’t complain that she isn’t a virgin on their wedding day”

Post engagement?!? Can he reasonably complain if she gave him her virginity pre engagement?

“However, you seem to be then assuming the groom is also responsible for the actions of all of the other men the bride has sex with prior to committing to him. This makes absolutely no sense.”

Not at all. I’ll expatiate below.

“This and your comment above denies the fact that women are deliberately waiting to marry while focusing on career and having sex with the most attractive men they can snag in the interim.”

I am not denying anything but aren’t men equally doing what you describe here? What I am saying is that men and women who choose to live in this way are best suited to marry one another…whenever such people come to desire marriage. That was my point. But on second thought, maybe such people shouldn’t marry at all. Maybe marriage should be reserved for those who don’t engage in premarital sex and are evidently prepared for the level fidelity that a good marriage requires.

It’s curious that you define ‘slut’ as a woman who has sex with a man that has not promised to marry her or one that she as not promised to marry. That’s a new definition of slut to me. I’ve never heard that one before.

Obviously it takes more than one man to make any single woman a slut seeing as a prerequisite for becoming a slut is for her to sleep with many men. What I am saying is that any man that has slept with many women equally deserves to marry a woman that has slept with many men! Furthermore, he is not responsible for all the men but he is responsible for all the women he has slept with and abandoned because he has contributed to making her a slut, he is also responsible for making himself the male equivalent of a slut in the same way she bares some responsibility for herself.

I’m sure she’s proud of her purity but I would love to hear about her experience of being married to you especially if you’re not a pastor and she’s not the only woman you’ve slept with (here’s why: I believe that men that have premarital sex continue to have extramarital sex during marriage. The only men that seem capable of overcoming the snare of infidelity, by their wedding day, are some pastors)

Suz,

As far as I know, Driscoll has only ever slept with Grace, therefore he is reasonably entitled to be outraged that she may have had consensual sex with another man. You can’t have the same standard if you have helped create sluts. You need not be her first. Every little helps!

I am not your online friend.

So the price of a good provider is my virginity? Where did you get that idea? Bible verse? Anything?

A man can have any standard for a wife he wants. No one has to marry anyone whose character doesn’t suit him, regardless of his own character. No one is moralizing about sluts who want to marry inexperienced men. Of course, a man who marries such a woman is probably behaving very foolishly and is likely being deceived as well. Not that 99% of women care about that. They’re mostly interested in convincing men that it’s hypocritical to want them to have one of the most desirable traits they can have – sexual self-control and freedom from the taint of having been with other men.

You have to wonder, don’t you, what God is busy doing about this. Cant he keep his rabble from flouting his explicit rules? Has he simply not noticed? Is the man just sitting on his thumbs while this goes on? Evidently so.

It’s almost like he’s on holiday, or in the toilet, or – perish the thought – just plain doesn’t exist.

“Can he reasonably complain if she gave him her virginity pre engagement?”

Heck yeah! Anything “pre-commitment” is a risk. If sh’d give it to him, why wouldn’t she give to any old hottie?

“Maybe marriage should be reserved for those who don’t engage in premarital sex and are evidently prepared for the level fidelity that a good marriage requires.”

Maybe, but realistically, what woman wants to risk marrying an “inexperienced” guy who might be unable to satisfy her? (see Joe: “sexual self-control and freedom from the taint of having been with other men.”) She might “respect” his virginity, but unless she lives in a cave, she’ll always wonder about the Hollywood/ Romance novel sex she might be missing.

” therefore he is reasonably entitled to be outraged that she may have had consensual sex with another man. ”

Sure he is, so why does he tell other men to be less outraged?

“So the price of a good provider is my virginity?”

Holy crap! Really? No dear. The price of a good provider, however, is the price HE chooses to set. You and Driscoll keep telling him to lower his price.

“The only men that seem capable of overcoming the snare of infidelity, by their wedding day, are some pastors”

-All the proof anybody needs, that you are not only delusional about the presumed “morality” of pastors, but that you are accustomed to the company of sleazebags, probably because you fit right in with them.

Step away from the keyboard and read. If you don’t understand something you see, ask an intelligent question. (“but aren’t men equally doing what you describe here?” – comes close, but I’ll bet you don’t even know why.) Then be prepared for an answer that doesn’t match anything you’ve ever heard before, and yet is irrefutable. You probably lack the mental capacity to grasp the objective truth in what you see here, but learn if you can.

Maybe the experienced man and the experienced women would be better suited for each other, as would the virginal men and the virginal women. Nevertheless, the highest degree of sexual attraction will exist between the experienced man and the virginal woman.

“A man can have any standard for a wife he wants. No one has to marry anyone whose character doesn’t suit him, regardless of his own character. No one is moralizing about sluts who want to marry inexperienced men. Of course, a man who marries such a woman is probably behaving very foolishly and is likely being deceived as well. Not that 99% of women care about that. They’re mostly interested in convincing men that it’s hypocritical to want them to have one of the most desirable traits they can have – sexual self-control and freedom from the taint of having been with other men.”

This is brilliant! I think it should apply to both sexes. So why won’t men stop going on and on about sluts when they are most likely the male equivalent themselves? women cannot become sluts without the help of men. Women might desire to become sluts, which I seriously doubt, but they can’t become sluts without the help of men. Real men take responsibility for their actions. If you’re a man, you should try it:-)

I should inform you that I hate promiscuity. I hate it so much that I will not only abstain from indulging in it directly, I will also abstain from ever uniting my body with any man that is ‘experienced’. I won’t be found dead married to one either.

Oh and I’m yet to be humped by an alpha or otherwise. I’m not silly.

See I think just like you except that I’m a woman and I’m no hypocrite.

I don’t think you understand the concept of hypergamy. I don’t think you are acknowledging WHY women are sluts and who they are slutting for. It isn’t the typical beta sitting in Driscoll’s church and no self respecting alpha (the ones the sluts are slutty for) would sit through that display by Driscoll. So Driscoll is literally preaching to the wrong men and the right women, the object of their slutty hypergamy in that room is most likely to by HIM, not the guy who they came in with.

What is also very sad is that I think that Driscoll understands that fact quite well, framing himself as the AMOG.

“This is brilliant! I think it should apply to both sexes. So why won’t men stop going on and on about sluts when they are most likely the male equivalent themselves? women cannot become sluts without the help of men. Women might desire to become sluts, which I seriously doubt, but they can’t become sluts without the help of men. Real men take responsibility for their actions. If you’re a man, you should try it:-)”

Hypergamy again Lola. You don’t seem to understand the concept that most of the men complaining about sluts are neither alphas or PUA’s, they are Beta’s. That means that they most likely want to settle down with a decent woman (if one can be found) while sorting through the refuse of another mans trash. It only takes a few “sexy”, “hunky” charming men to make thousands of sluts. And then my fellow beta’s and I are suddenly responsible for the entire carousel, because we are men? Nope, having not reaped the “reward” why should we pay for the ride?

It’s pretty clear how a decent beta can be attractive to a down-on-her-luck slut but what is in it for him? He gets to provide a home and slut-cial security so she can go back to hypergamous ways? Why can’t non-PUA’s get excited by that? I wonder.

Lola, like nearly every other woman in the world, uses the word “men” to mean “men I notice”. The rest are invisible to her. However many men would like to participate in the creation of sluts, only a relative handful actually get to do so.

“Heck yeah! Anything “pre-commitment” is a risk. If sh’d give it to him, why wouldn’t she give to any old hottie?”

So you’re saying that it is OK for him to have unmarried sex but he can reasonably reject women who do the same with him and other men…because he is a man and she isn’t?

But it’s not OK for Driscoll to desire a virgin while asking you to marry your slut…because he’s a man and you’re a man?

So you don’t appreciate hypocrisy when it’s not to your advantage.

And please don’t say it’s because men value chastity and women don’t because that’s a lie you probably read off a page!

“Maybe, but realistically, what woman wants to risk marrying an “inexperienced” guy who might be unable to satisfy her? (see Joe: “sexual self-control and freedom from the taint of having been with other men.”) She might “respect” his virginity, but unless she lives in a cave, she’ll always wonder about the Hollywood/ Romance novel sex she might be missing.”

It’s funny when men say that women want what men actually want because men are too chicken to admit that they want what they want:-)

If ‘experience’ is all that distinguishes good sex from bad sex, wouldn’t women would prefer it if their husband gained all of his sexual experience with her during their marriage instead of using and abandoning other women to achieve ‘experience’. He can learn with his wife (during marriage, which should last the rest of their lives!) and they’ll soon be having sex that is better than Hollywood/romance novel sex before they know it; sex without the insecurities of infidelity!

Logically and morally, an inexperienced man is a more satisfactory husband and father than an experienced (slut) man. You don’t really believe that promiscuity is the only way a man can gain sexual experience do you? Can a man not gain experience and become great at sex over time and with only one woman, his wife? Or do you really think women are stupid and immoral enough to believe the nonsense you’ve just churned out?

“Sure he is, so why does he tell other men to be less outraged?”

I thought I had explained this clearly enough?

Because unlike most men he had only ever slept with the woman from which he demanded virginity and he did the right thing to marry her. He wasn’t hypocritically demanding her virginity seeing as he gave her his.

By all means demand virginity from the only woman you’ve ever slept with. It’s only fair but how dare you demand virginity if you’ve slept with many women yourself (and are therefore a male slut)?

Sluts deserve each other. Plus Driscoll married a slut by any definition, he’s not asking you to do anything he hasn’t already done himself. Why are you complaining?

“Step away from the keyboard and read.”

I prefer to think for myself.

“You probably lack the mental capacity to grasp the objective truth in what you see here, but learn if you can”

And you lack the capacity to think for yourself. You talk about objectivity and yet you blame men’s promiscuity on the lie that women want to marry experienced men. Growing up I was told, “boys will want to sleep with you but they’ll want to marry a virgin”. Now men try to justify their promiscuity by telling themselves that they sleep with as any women as they can because no woman wants to marry an inexperienced man lol nonsense!

“Holy crap! Really? No dear. The price of a good provider, however, is the price HE chooses to set. You and Driscoll keep telling him to lower his price.”

LolaI believe that men that have premarital sex continue to have extramarital sex during marriage. The only men that seem capable of overcoming the snare of infidelity, by their wedding day, are some pastors)

Lola – ”I think it should apply to both sexes. So why won’t men stop going on and on about sluts when they are most likely the male equivalent themselves?

Yes, it should apply to both sex, equally. But, the way that it should be properly applied would be for woman to start complaining about, and sexually/romantically rejecting male sluts the same way men reject female sluts. Far too many women have adopted the stance that it should be that men should stop rejecting female sluts, and start preferring them the way women prefer male sluts (this is a bigger and more complex issue that will fit herein – you should do some independent research for “pre-selection”, “ocxytocin bonding”, and even “paternity fraud” as just a means of scratching the surface of matters I take it you’ve never considered before).

”women cannot become sluts without the help of men.”

Partial credit for that. The correct statement would be that “Women cannot become sluts without some men who are willin got help them become so”.

I’m guessing that you are also not familiar with the 80:20 pattern of women’s and men’s and men sexual distributions?

” Women might desire to become sluts, which I seriously doubt, but they can’t become sluts without the help of men.”

Women take their cues from pop-culture. If Ke$hia, Samantha from Sex In the City, et. al. are promoting sexual promiscuity, them there will be (as we actually do know that there have been) plenty of women looking to be …, well, the thing is they don’t imagine themselves becoming sluts, they see themselves as becoming sexually self-empowered, free to experience whom ever, where ever, and how ever often they chose. That they transform themselves into sluts likely comes as something of a surprise to them.

And, yes, there are men all too willing to help them to become the sluts they never really intended to become. Playa’s willing to pump-n-dump are readily available when “girls, they wanna have fun”.

”Real men take responsibility for their actions. If you’re a man, you should try it:-)”

And, what poorly informed women isn’t going to at least attempt to shame men who don’t agree with her views. I’m just surprised it took you to the end of your comment to get to it. Why wouldn’t you think it would be better to state “Real women take responsibility for their actions” – what with women being the “gatekeepers” and all that?

Oh! Right,

That would mean that you, as a woman, would have to take such responsibility for your own actions.

“I think it should apply to both sexes. So why won’t men stop going on and on about sluts when they are most likely the male equivalent themselves?”

I can see you didn’t understand at all what was being said. No man, whatever his own personal history, is required to settle for a loose woman, just as no woman, whatever her history, is required to marry a player. No woman is required to marry a man with children, even if she has children herself. Maybe you can’t wrap your head around this, but the only double standard that exists in these matters exists in the minds of women themselves. Women are responsible for behaviors that make them more or less desirable, as are men. You’re not going to hear women being shamed for marrying inexperienced men who live in a blue pill world. Even when their motives are much less sincere and conditioned by a desperate response to their clicking tock. But you will hear men shamed relentlessly, called all sorts of names (a potential abuser, even a pervert!) for wanting to marry a woman who’s a virgin. We all know why this double standard – the REAL double standard, exists. It’s that women today want to ride the carousel until they want children, then they want a blue-pill chump to “not be a hypocrite” and pretend it doesn’t matter that the woman he’s marrying has been used by other men and is marrying not for love but out of fear being old, childless, and alone.

“women cannot become sluts without the help of men. Women might desire to become sluts, which I seriously doubt, but they can’t become sluts without the help of men. Real men take responsibility for their actions. ”

The lack of reasoning is simply breathtaking. All men are not responsible for any women becoming a slut. A man who lives a promiscuous life would be hypocritical to judge women morally for being sluts, but he is simply being sensible in recognizing that a slut is a poor choice for a prospective wife.

There are probably many men who reason (I hope not so many as there used to be) “I’ve slept with other women, why should I expect her to be better” – that’s not “Taking responsibility” – that’s confusing the hypocrisy of morally condemning someone for one’s own shortcomings and committing the fallacy of imagining that one’s own moral shortcomings make another’s irrelevant in judging whether or not they are a good choice. The shaming of men who want to marry virgins is about the one thing that ALL feminism is about – the desire of women to NOT take responsibility for their own decisions. (in particular their sexual choices) Be it the decisions that lead them to be pregnant (abortion) – the decisions that lead them to demand the extraction of resources from men they betray, their decision to marry men who they have good reason to suspect will be abusive or philandering – they want the consequences for all their choices to be taken away and the burden of those consequences shifted onto others. In the case of trying to shame men who want to marry virgins and don’t want to marry sluts, it’s about refusing to accept the consequences of riding the carousel.

Of course all of this has been said in one manner or another hundreds, thousands of times on these sorts of blogs and boards. Yet the same slogan-like, thoughtless answers are made in response. I suppose it’s very beta to expect most women to be convinced of anything by logic and reason.

**that’s confusing the hypocrisy of morally condemning someone else for having one’s own shortcomings with the fallacy of imagining that one’s own moral shortcomings make another’s irrelevant in judging whether or not they are a good choice for a spouse.”

Shaming men is the last frontier for any type of consequence for slut behavior. Get that out of the way and let the hypergamy games truly begin, every girl can become Annabell Chong and never expect any shame whatsoever for there behavior. Virtuous women should be thankful that men aren’t marrying sluts, it is the very last thing holding them accountable.

“Virtuous women should be thankful that men aren’t marrying sluts, it is the very last thing holding them accountable.”

Yes, it’s very clear that women who complain about “double-standards” are generally considering only their own self-interest – whether they call themselves Christians or not, one would not expect virtuous women to protest so loudly.

“Yes, it’s very clear that women who complain about “double-standards” are generally considering only their own self-interest – whether they call themselves Christians or not, one would not expect virtuous women to protest so loudly.”

I can only think that those interests stem from either a female version of the “blue pill” (which I doubt) or their own hypergamous instinct kicking in and putting them in league with other like minded women. The sirens song of the sluts.

“**that’s confusing the hypocrisy of morally condemning someone else for having one’s own shortcomings with the fallacy of imagining that one’s own moral shortcomings make another’s irrelevant in judging whether or not they are a good choice for a spouse.”

Point taken. I guess I’m offended that my male slut friends find my sexual inexperience attractive and want to marry me, of course these offended feelings only set in once initial feelings of flattery wear off. You could say I’m refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of my decision not to be a slut.

Point taken. I guess I’m offended that my male slut friends find my sexual inexperience attractive and want to marry me, of course these offended feelings only set in once initial feelings of flattery wear off. You could say I’m refusing to take responsibility for the consequences of my decision not to be a slut.

For a non slut, you sure have a large investment in making sure that men marry sluts.

You’re flattered that they APPRECIATE and VALUE your virtue, and that wears off? So they like having sex with women they wouldn’t dream of marrying, YOU are the real prize, and you’re offended? Are they not good enough for you because they’re non-virgins? What’s wrong with non-virgins? I’m very much under the impression you believe non-virgins to be excellent marriage prospects.

“You’re flattered that they APPRECIATE and VALUE your virtue, and that wears off? So they like having sex with women they wouldn’t dream of marrying, YOU are the real prize, and you’re offended? Are they not good enough for you because they’re non-virgins? What’s wrong with non-virgins? I’m very much under the impression you believe non-virgins to be excellent marriage prospects.”

I think you’re on to something their Suz. Something that smells like an especially hypocritical double-standard. I’m wondering why a virtuous woman has such a well fed and exercised hamster, is anyone else?

I find it incredibly interesting that men sleep with their girlfriends and then feel entitled to marry virgins.

I don’t like you very much, Lola, but I’m with you on this point. I’ve only encountered it once in real life though – a friend of mine. I raked him over the coals: “Dude, YOU’RE not, how can you hold HER to that requirement? I actually AM a virgin and I COULD demand that but I don’t — who am I to cast stones because her sins were different than mine?” He got the point.

Driscoll is right when he says that men who sleep with their girlfriends should marry them

Perhaps, but Driscoll is wrong about nearly everything else. He’s a natural alpha, part of the small percentage of men for whom finding, attracting, seducing women is EASY. So by projection he assumes this is true for most men — when it’s just the opposite, for most men getting a date is a titanic effort and getting a woman into bed (either illicitly or in the honeymoon suite) is a life-consuming or even life-breaking quest. Whereas for guys like him, it all happens very easily, so he just assumes that most of the men around him are fornicating up a storm – when in reality it’s a small group of guys doing all the damage while the majority of guys, especially in church, are incels (involuntarily celibates).

Driven by this mistake, Driscoll excoriates men for sins that only a few of them ever have the opportunity to commit. It’s almost like Joshua Harris telling a lonely nerd who hasn’t had a date in years, that he needs to “kiss dating goodbye”. In both cases, the target audience has the EXACT OPPOSITE problem from the one that Driscoll, Harris, et al are trying to “solve”.

The only men that seem capable of overcoming the snare of infidelity, by their wedding day, are some pastors

Pastors? You’ve gotta be kidding me. Pastors are the WORST. No offense intended to faithful married pastors, but pastors as a group tend to get into sexual trouble rather MORE often than the general population.

As for me… I never went all the way til my wedding night, and I’ve been happily married for just shy of 10 years. And I’ve NEVER cheated. And I’m NOT a pastor.

(some years ago) as a young, single Christian, i was strongly encouraged to be very ‘open’ to girls with pasts, including single mothers with children.

They need not have bothered. Most were so damaged by their poor choices it was never an issue of the single men being more accepting. Usually, the gals in these situations expressed fairly common behaviours.

1. Resentful of having been duped by their own vanity in the pua pump and dump routine, with expectations of suitors so sky high no mere mortalwould, or could, ever qualify.

2. Attitude and entitlement like you would not believe.

3. Suspicious, untrusting and inwardly afraid of all mens motives.

4. Adopt a victim role, either actively in being outspoken about what *%@#*&s men are, or in a passive, inwards focussed depessive manner.

And anyway, as an ignorant young white knighting gamma, my virtue was never really in danger. All that sermonising about staying pure should have been directed towards the church girls who sought put more tingling locales than the church scene and who got impregnated by whatever pua caught their attention.

Happily married now and using a mild version of game suited to ltrs, but if only i had known game then.

In my part of the world, ‘Sue’ is the only short form for Susan or Susie. ‘Suz’ is indeed very masculine; you’d realise this if you hadn’t accepted or concocted ‘Suz’ as a short form of Susan or Susie.

Furthermore, you’ll notice that the name Susan is pronounced [soo-zuh n]. Notice that the z sound is separate from the soo sound.

Here’s my advise: If you want to make it obvious that you’re a woman that is advancing arguments that you’ve copied from men (I say ‘copied from men’ because I’ve heard all of your logically flawed arguments before, from the men who first made them), you should change you name to ‘Sue’ and then you won’t be mistaken for a man that is probably advancing the same plagiarised arguments.

OK darling… but like I said, Sue is the only short form for Susan or Susie that I was aware of until she pointed out that Suz was short for Susie. In fact ‘Suz’ sounds, to me, like the name of a male sumo wrestler.

It was clear to the men that Suz was a woman from the very beginning. Few believe that Suz is “advancing arguments that [she] copied from men”. Suz brings a woman’s perspective and often takes issue with aspects of what men have said. Although she sometimes disagrees, she does it respectfully. Men appreciate a woman that knows how to have a civil debate.

Lola said: “Lol Umm CL, there’s really no harm in spectating silently if you have nothing sensible to contribute.”

CL said: “I think Lola is a man.”

It is primarily women that engage in “spectating silently” while running off their mouths (or in this case fingers on a keyboard). And having nothing of sense to contribute has no bearing on having the common sense discretion to not “contribute.” Furthermore, Lola’s immediate recourse to shaming another is a “tell” that she is a woman.

Of course CL was joking about Lola being a man, but Lola does appear to have penis envy.

Lola: “I find it incredibly interesting that men sleep with their girlfriends and then feel entitled to marry virgins.”

van Rooinek: “I“Dude, YOU’RE not [a virgin], how can you hold HER to that requirement? I actually AM a virgin and I COULD demand that but I don’t — who am I to cast stones because her sins were different than mine?”

Here’s why the double standard on virginity and marriage exists.

1. There’s research by or cited by Social Pathologist that indicates a direct relationship between a woman’s N (number of premarital sex partners) and odds of divorce. IOW, as her N increases, the odds of divorce increase. There is no such research indicating the same for men with high N. A woman with a high N is a poor marriage risk. The same cannot be said for men with high Ns, especially when a man who divorces a wife will not receive cash and prizes on his way out the door.

Moreover, men with high Ns, the true players and alphas, just don’t marry. Why should they, when they feast at the sexual smorgasbord?

2. Male virginity is simply not valued as is female virginity. No woman wants a man no other woman wants. Women look at a male virgin and say “No other woman wanted to sex him. Why should I want to?” Women are rewarded for their virginity; men are penalized and punished for it.

3. A woman with a high N is more likely to cuckold her husband (i.e. marry a beta and get pregnant by an alpha), and thereby dupe an unsuspecting beta into raising an alpha’s bastard child. Cuckolding is to men as rape is to women. Cuckolding is a risk that women simply do not face. There is no chance that a woman will be defrauded and swindled into raising a bastard.

This is really all about women wanting to sleep around like men do and not bear any consequences for it. Sorry. Not gonna fly.

So I don’t want to hear anymore from Lola about how it’s not fair that men can sleep around and women can’t. It’s a load of s#!t.

Actually, that isn’t quite true. I get pushback on both, but always from women and white knights taking up the cause. Women argue that they can tame the alpha and make him marriage worthy. Women also complain that I warn men away from sluts.

4. A female virgin is more likely to be younger, more fertile and not be ravaged by STDs or diseases. She probably doesn’t have a petri dish pelvis with who knows what organisms living in there. She is able to offer a clean, undiseased womb to one man for impregnation and raising of children.

This brings me back to one of the the things I said a few threads back about Churchian morality and game, and what the socons say about game:
–Women are pure. Men are base.
–Young single Christian men are supposed to be chaste and should not complain about it.
–Young single Christian women are supposed to be chaste, but if they are not, it’s some man’s fault.
The socons truly believe that men are preying on these sweet paragons of virtue in their churches. It’s s#!t. All of it.

“Another set of impediments is based on fundamental error of person. In its first and elementary meaning, error of person was the case when the persons would conclude a marriage without knowing each other until the ceremony. This used to be the case of marriages arranged by proxies or correspondence, when the descriptions of the persons would depict a much different person than the reality.

In past times, when morality was the rule, it was common for a young woman to be a virgin until the wedding. If she was not, she knew that she should inform the groom because he could well consider the lack of virginity an error of person.”

If women were up in arms about having to marry non-virgin men, they would be praised and supported by the white knight brigade. No one would call them creepy or perverted, or would say they had a double standard. Of course they would all claim to be chaste young women who couldn’t possibly be expected to commit to a man who’d ever been with another girl before. Whatever the truth of that claim might be.

“Suz” is short for “Suzanne.” It’s not only somewhat masculine (lacking the cute little “eeee” factor) but it’s also honest. Hmm.

Lola, remember when I said, “Step away from the keyboard and read?” Your comment, “Have these men only been visiting this site for the same length of time as me? For goodness sake, I only met Suz on Wednesday…” is exactly why I said it. You read one comment by me and assumed you knew exactly who and what I am. If you could be bothered to spend even 15 or 20 minutes browsing this site BEFORE SPOUTING YOUR EXPERT OPINIONS, you’d know quite a bit about several of the regular commenters here. But I suspect it’s more important to you to call attention to your own moral superiority, with your broad condemnations that are propped up by tiny grains of truth.

Van Rooinek (dude, I love that name!) and a few others, myself included, have supported a few of your individual statements. Yet based on your other statements, most of us reject your larger conclusions/assumptions. If you can open your mind to the valid criticisms of your mistaken impressions, not only will you learn something new, that new knowledge will probably reinforce your deepest personal morality. But you first need to understand that your personal morality has been under attack by secular influences AND CORRUPTED RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES, throughout your entire life.

You can start with one of my favorite soapboxes, which not everyone here agrees with: The “morality” of familial and social structures in the Bible, is VALID – not because it’s in the Bible, but because it has promoted success in civilizations since long before it became a religious standard. Don’t look for moral answers in modern “Churcianity.” It has been utterly corrupted by the culture it must accommodate, in order to garner donations and continue to exist. Morality ALWAYS makes sense. Religion is created and maintained by humans, and humans are subject to temptation. Don’t buy the church’s rarely spoken (but still dominant) assumption that women are helpless victims.

Incidentally, In “real life” I’m usually Suzy, ’cause I have nothing against cuteness and femininity.

1. I have a copy of the full version of that paper by Kahn and London. I have read it. Although the authors show that there is a correlation between premarital sex and divorce among, the authors admit that their results show that premarital sex is NOT THE DIRECT CAUSE of divorce among such women.

You are wrong. Players marry and want to marry. Marriage doesn’t stop them from sleeping with sluts. It’s called adultery.

2. You are wrong again. Somehow you’ve convinced yourself that a man can only remain a virgin if no woman wants him. It’s simply not true and women don’t believe it. Do you also believe that a man can only remain faithful to his wife if no other woman wants him? It’s a load of BS (read as: Big Society). Women value male virginity but are frequently willing to settle for non virgins because they’ve been told that the majority of men are sluts anyway.

3. You say more likely, so I’m assuming that you have statistically significant evidence to back up that claim?

Here’s something I think you should read. It’s comment by a poster going buy the name of SarahsDaughter. It pretty much speaks for itself, so I’ll just leave you with the words of a self-identified (ex-)slut:

Women are not viscerally attracted to virginal men unless they are both very young. “Fair” doesn’t come into it. Virginal men could complain about that but it would be as pointless as women complaining about the fact that men prefer lower count women over sluts (for marriage, that is).

In practice, just as similarly ranked individuals tend to pair up, those with similar counts (not the same, just not wildly divergent) will tend to be attracted to one another. Most women don’t want to be the one with the higher count in their relationships. Women do not value virginity in men and a woman with a higher count than her man feels like a comparative slut.

1. LIFE. IS. NOT. FAIR. Deal with it. We will all just have to learn to deal with that.

2. Sexual availability: Any woman at a 4 or above in attractiveness can get sex anytime she wants it. All she has to do is walk to the nearest bar, announce “Who in here is DTF right now?” She need only watch the men present themselves, and she can select the most attractive one.

By contrast, most men live in a sexual desert. They beg and supplicate for whatever scraps they can find some woman willing to throw them. Many of those men can’t even get a date from a 4. That 4 won’t date most men, because she can get an alpha for a night.

3. Virginity: Male virgins are shamed by men and women. Female virgins are prized and treasured by men.

4. Divorce: A man divorcing his wife for any reason –even for her infidelity and cuckkoldry — will pay dearly to extricate himself from the marriage she destroyed. She bears no penalty for her own conduct — even when her conduct directly caused the marriage’s demise.

A wife divorcing her husband for any reason — even for no reason at all — collects substantial cash and prizes.

5. Relationships: A woman can have sex, or a relationship, or a relationship with or without sex, or sex with or without relationships. It ‘s about what she wants, uber alles, forever. Her wants, needs and desires are paramount, for all time. And the man is supposed to simply know what she wants, all the time.

If a man wants sex, he has to offer her what she wants, and he is supposed to simply know what she wants. He needs to offer her NSA sex if that’s what she wants. He needs to offer her a relationship if she wants him to. But if she doesn’t want a relationship and he does, then he’s an icky beta and is showing too much investment too soon.

If he wants sex but no relationship, he’s a pig, a cad, and a playa. If he wants sex and a relationship, he’s demanding something she does not want and is an unattractive beta. If he wants a relationship before sex, he’s a chump and a loser, and obviously one of those icky male virgin Christian Bible thumpers that no woman wants.

“Women value male virginity but are frequently willing to settle for non virgins”

Bulls#!t
Male virgins, especially young ones, rarely have the skills (usually won by sexual experience) to “sweep women off their feet.” “Sweeping,” when it’s genuine instead of contrived, is the dominance that women want and NEED from men. I specifically said “usually won by sexual experience,” because the privacy of the bedroom is one of the few places where modern feminized society still permits men to learn and display true dominance. A guy who is determined to cultivate his innate dominance isn’t necessarily a good bet (for a husband) but a man who is willing to let his dominance be annihilated, is a bad bet for a husband. He will allow his wife’s emotions to lead his family, rather than leading it himself, and his wife will NEVER feel secure with him.

I’ll accept what you say for the sake of argument. The premarital sex is not the direct cause. The effect of that premarital sex on the women who had that sex is the cause of divorce. A woman’s high N screws up her thinking. She can’t pair bond to one man after tasting all that alpha c*ck. She can’t settle for one man after having had her choice among so many men. Quite simply, she can’t be sexually satisfied with the beta who was willing to marry her. Only the alpha c*ck will satisfy her. High N women want the alpha’s c*ck and the beta’s wallet.

“Somehow you’ve convinced yourself that a man can only remain a virgin if no woman wants him. It’s simply not true and women don’t believe it. *** Women value male virginity but are frequently willing to settle for non virgins because they’ve been told that the majority of men are sluts anyway.”

Evidence? What you’re saying here are YOUR subjective beliefs. That’s not evidence. You’re saying that YOU don’t believe a man can only remain a virgin if no woman wants him. (And the fact that YOU do not believe the truth of something that is so obviously true does not make it false. Typical solipsistic thinking: “Well, I don’t believe that, and it’s not my experience, so it MUST be false.”)

You’re saying that YOU value male virginity. I can tell you that if YOU value male virginity, you are in a very small minority.

Pray tell, Lola: Where are all these women who “value male virginity”? Can someone tell me where they are? What church do they go to? Where can my children socialize with them? Where can my son grow up to meet a woman who will value his virginity?

No, Lola, I take it back: You do value male virginity, all right. You value it in men you wouldn’t sleep with or marry anyway.

Women value male virginity in men they don’t want anyway, so it doesn’t matter to them.

When debating the truth of a proposition, the debater should not posit that something is not true because the debater believes it not to be true, or because the proposition is not within the debater’s personal experience, or because “women” or “men” do not believe it to be true. This is solipsism. Please avoid this fallacy in the future, Lola.

Lola – ”You are wrong. Players marry and want to marry. Marriage doesn’t stop them from sleeping with sluts. It’s called adultery.”

(sorry to shamelessly plagiarize your comment, but…)
So, I’m assuming that you have statistically significant evidence to back up that claim?

Techinaclly, it’s “infidelity”. Even if they aren’t married, they sex they could still have sex with a married women, which is also “adultery”.

But, that’s an insignificant point compared to the assertion that “Players” wish to marry (which would suggest that a majority of them feel that way), against the backdrop of the current socio-sexual reality.

Now, there are certainly situations in which Players would be desirous of marriage. A man in politics comes to my mind as an example (I’m struggling to come up with others, maybe you can suggest some?), since being married seems to be an important thing for the voting populace. And, of course, politicians are well know for their infidelities.

I suppose who could include some professional athletes and celebrities who would want to have the mother of their children also be their wife (although, any more, this too seems to be on the wane).

But, in general, there is very little actual incentive for Players to marry anymore. And, there are, of course, some very real disincentives for them to marry.

Lola – ” Women value male virginity but are frequently willing to settle for non virgins because they’ve been told that the majority of men are sluts anyway.”

(again?)
So, I’m assuming that you have statistically significant evidence to back up that claim?

The conventional wisdom (which seems to comport well with observation) is that women DO judge a man’s desirability based on what is known as pre-selection (by other women) based on his relative sexual success with women.

A fun experiment one might try would be to go to some social gathering, and to pick out some guy (who would look the part) to “warn” other women about, by telling them to “watch out, that guy sleeps with lots of women”. Warn both single women AND married women the same, then sit back an watch to see if a significant number of the women you’ve “warned”, married as well as single, don’t approach him to “chat him up”.

Women are not viscerally attracted to virginal men unless they are both very young. “Fair” doesn’t come into it. Virginal men could complain about that but it would be as pointless as women complaining about the fact that men prefer lower count women over sluts (for marriage, that is).

Part of the problem is that for women romantic love and sexual attraction are so closely intertwined that there is almost no distinction to be made. This is the meaning of the “I love you but I’m not in love with you” speech so many husbands get along with a steaming pile of “I’m not haaaapy!”. Not only that, but women also can experience lessened sexual attraction as not feeling loved by their husband.

1. I have a copy of the full version of that paper by Kahn and London. I have read it.

Seriously? Your obsession with pushing men into marrying sluts is breathtaking. Are you sure you are a virgin who really wants to make sure all of those sluts you are competing with for husbands get their fair shake? Honestly, on the odd chance that you really were such a strange beast, as a man I’d stay far away from marrying a woman who goes to bat for sluts. In fact, this is something I specifically advise men to stay away from in a prospective wife.

Although the authors show that there is a correlation between premarital sex and divorce among, the authors admit that their results show that premarital sex is NOT THE DIRECT CAUSE of divorce among such women.

I don’t have a copy of the full paper, but I’d wager what they said is they can’t point the causal arrow. They can see a correlation, but can’t prove that A caused B. B might have caused A, or both might be correlated with the real cause, C. This is the nature of multiple regression (I can expatiate on it for you if you like). This is entirely different than them concluding that the premarital sex wasn’t the direct cause. Not being able to point the causal arrow cuts both ways. But that won’t keep your dreams from being haunted by unhappy sluts, so you changed what they said to make it sound like they found that premarital sex doesn’t cause marital unhappiness among women.

Lola, take the time to read through the links in Dalrock’s last comment. Here is an ugly truth behind the church’s dismay over “slutty” men: A certain percentage of men have always used their masculinity frivolously – on sexual conquest and on recreational competition. This is actually necessary to a functional society, since non-reproducing men have always contributed to the good of society. We like to pretend this is inherently immoral though, because they’re “wasting” their manhood (for which we think we might have a better use.)

Now take a look at what feminism has done to change the rules by which men must play. Society no longer rewards men for “manning up” and using their masculinity productively. It taxes the crap out of the wealth their hard work earns, and uses that money to support people who aren’t really helpless, but intentionally unproductive. It tells them to “be good husbands” by acting like eunuchs and obeying the rules set by feminists – not demanding accountability from their wives, because women have good excuses for not being accountable. (those excuses are propped up by their friends, their families, their employers, the church, and the law.) Then society tells them THEY are to blame when anything goes wrong. It calls them ugly names, steals even more of their wealth, and puts them in jail for not jumping through enough hoops.

So we seem to have an excess of “slutty” men who aren’t doing society any favors. Shame on them! Right? Wrong. Society has stopped doing men any favors. It has stopped rewarding men for being productive. It punishes men for being responsible, yet it criticizes them for being irresponsible. Whereas when it comes to women, society calls them naive suckers for being responsible, and rewards them for being irresponsible (with money stolen from productive men!)

Do you wonder where all the good men are? I tell you. Fortunately, many of them are married. And hoping to God they can stay married. You can find the unmarried “good ones” primarily in two groups. The older divorced ones are working their asses off to support the women who stole their children. They aren’t going to marry you for one of two reasons – either because they can’t afford to support you, or they don’t dare give you the opportunity to crap all over what’s left of their lives. (Oh sure, you’re not like that! Funny, they’ve heard that line before…)

The younger, never-married “good ones” have watched their fathers and their friends’ fathers go through this legal/financial/emotional meat grinder, and are NOT planning to follow suit. There’s no incentive. So what’s left for them to do? Earn just enough money to support ONE person. Hang out with the guys during the (copious amounts of) free time they have since they’re not wearing themselves out rakin’ in the dough. Have sex with all the horny, “liberated,” self-supporting career girls and college girls who throw themselves at “enigmatic” men with interesting hobbies, who seem so independent.

“Women look at a male virgin and say “No other woman wanted to sex him. Why should I want to?”

I merely opposed your comment at the same standard. I hoped you wouldn’t mind.

“The effect of that premarital sex on the women who had that sex is the cause of divorce. A woman’s high N screws up her thinking. She can’t pair bond to one man after tasting all that alpha c*ck. She can’t settle for one man after having had her choice among so many men. Quite simply, she can’t be sexually satisfied with the beta who was willing to marry her. Only the alpha c*ck will satisfy her. High N women want the alpha’s c*ck and the beta’s wallet.”

I’ll explain my problem with that paragraph in your own words. Here it goes: “Evidence? What you’re saying here are YOUR subjective beliefs. That’s not evidence”

Do you have any idea of what it takes to try to prove causality? Don’t be so bold.

“You’re saying that YOU don’t believe a man can only remain a virgin if no woman wants him. (And the fact that YOU do not believe the truth of something that is so obviously true does not make it false. Typical solipsistic thinking: “Well, I don’t believe that, and it’s not my experience, so it MUST be false.”)”

What you don’t realise is that you will need to be omniscient to prove that a man can only remain a virgin if no woman wants him. However, in the absence of such omniscience on your part, all I will need to prove that you’re wrong is to find atleast one male virgin that has turned a woman’s offer for sex. Luckily for me and you, I know at least one such man.

Furthermore Deti, and in your own words, “And the fact that YOU do not believe the truth of something that is so obviously true does not make it false. Typical solipsistic thinking: “Well, I don’t believe that, and it’s not my experience, so it MUST be false.”

I wouldn’t want to marry any of your men either and it is certainly in my interest that you ask them to stay away from me. You have my support there:-)

Secondly, I won’t need your help in understanding multiple regression. I have advanced degrees in the stuff but thanks for offering.

The paper says what I’ve said it says and it also says “they can’t point the causal arrow”, so well done. They do conclude, however, that premarital sex among women is NOT a direct cause of divorce and they reject the hypothesis that premarital sex increases the risk of divorce among women.

Clearly, Lola, you don’t understand much about biology. (And you won’t learn it in the church. Well, maybe a little if you’re Catholic.) The male sex drive is much stronger (and more consistent) than the female sex drive; it takes FAR more discipline for a man to remain a virgin, than for a woman. A statistical inevitability follows.

It won’t be easy for you to find scientific data on pair-bonding and how it is affected by promiscuity (trust me on that) but solid information exists. You have already been directed to a number of sites that offers evidence for the “opinions” you so casually dismiss here. Go read them. I’ll be back in a couple of hours – time to get my hair highlighted! ‘Cause I’m such a girly girl!

I did a couple of quick searches (pair-bonding and number of sexual partners & promiscuity and pair-bonding) and got some promising looking results. Haven’t read them yet, as I’m getting ready to go to the gym (It would sound moronic to say “’cause I’m such a guly guy” – but, I’m tempted..)

“Secondly, I won’t need your help in understanding multiple regression. I have advanced degrees in the stuff but thanks for offering.”

Okay, female omega? Carousel rider? Asexual celibacy?

Your degree’s don’t seem to be helping you with your argumentation OR your “love life”. I’m also beginning to wonder which planet you received your advanced degrees on? You must have to study and work very hard to maintain your social naivety for that long on any college campus on Earth (Religious or Secular).

“Secondly, I won’t need your help in understanding multiple regression. I have advanced degrees in the stuff but thanks for offering.”

Okay, female omega? Carousel rider? Asexual celibacy?

Your degree’s don’t seem to be helping you with your argumentation OR your “love life”. I’m also beginning to wonder which planet you received your advanced degrees on? You must have to study and work very hard to maintain your social naivety for that long on any college campus on Earth (Religious or Secular).”

Like I said…I’m beginning enjoy these red herrings. You think I’m indebted to you because you didn’t pay for my degrees.

This too is a red herring, and thoughtless plagiarism (never mind inaccurate) by both Suz and yourself:

“The male sex drive is much stronger (and more consistent) than the female sex drive; it takes FAR more discipline for a man to remain a virgin, than for a woman. A statistical inevitability follows.”

Saying something ‘happens’ is different to saying it is ‘more likely to happen’. It is misleading to that say something is ‘more likely’ to happen when there isn’t statistically reliable evidence to support that claim.

For those who are keeping score: Lola has gone from being all about Christian sexual morality, to being all about why sluts make good wives. The only downside is I can’t prove she isn’t a sock puppet doing this on purpose.

Driscoll is right when he says that men who sleep with their girlfriends should marry them. He is infact a true Christian who did the biblical thing by marrying Grace. But you won’t understand it, especially if you’re ungratefully married to a virtuous woman who was silly enough to marry you.

After I pointed out that neither alphas nor sluts are a good fit for marriage, and showed where I had made these exact points before, all of a sudden she is all about the scientific case for marrying sluts:

The paper says what I’ve said it says and it also says “they can’t point the causal arrow”, so well done. They do conclude, however, that premarital sex among women is NOT a direct cause of divorce and they reject the hypothesis that premarital sex increases the risk of divorce among women.

So there you have it. Man up and marry those sluts! My work here is done.

By the way, the paper can’t both say what she says it says and also say they can’t point the causal arrow. If they can’t point the arrow, they can’t rule a causal relationship out. This is stats 101. But she knows this because she has advanced degrees in stuff.

Just read the paper and stop making these unfounded claims! It is possible to know that x does not cause y but not know what actually causes y. This is basic!

Just read the damn paper.

It appears you have the wrong paper. Deti is free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe he was referring to this post by The Social Pathologist. That post isn’t about a paper by Kahn and London, but one by Jay Teachman. Here is an excerpt from the conclusion that TSP shared:

The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

However, your real problem is that I don’t have to convince men not to marry sluts, while you feel compelled to convince them to do so. While I wouldn’t advise it, any man who has his heart set on marrying a slut is free to do so. I won’t lose a wink of sleep about it.

Thanks for the tip, slwerner. I was afraid I’d have to go down to the university library to access some academic databases, but maybe scholar.google would be adequate.

Thanks for trying to keep score, Dalrock – that hamster is FAST!
[D: Thanks Suz. FYI I’ve put her on the blacklist, although no one can deny that I gave her ample opportunity to make her case. If she offers up a particularly entertaining run on the wheel I might fish one final comment of hers out of the filter.]

“The male sex drive is much stronger (and more consistent) than the female sex drive; it takes FAR more discipline for a man to remain a virgin, than for a woman. A statistical inevitability follows.”

Women have much lower testosterone levels than men do, hence their much lower sex drives.
This is something female bodybuilders could tell you a thing or two about. When they start taking testosterone to bulk up for competition, they say they are constantly horny and can’t stop thinking about sex. (Just think, this is what the average guy has to deal with pretty much all of the time!)

If most women wanted sex as much as the average man wants it, human existence would be one giant never-ending orgy. Plus, maybe women would start asking men out and buying them dinner and drinks and such, instead of the reverse.

“The male sex drive is much stronger (and more consistent) than the female sex drive; it takes FAR more discipline for a man to remain a virgin, than for a woman. A statistical inevitability follows. ”

Of course, the flipside of that is that women get propositioned for sex far more than just about any man (with the possible exception of Elvis and a few others), and often by men who are relatively more attractive than they are, if those men are only looking for something short term. So their opportunities to give in are almost constant.

“Of course, the flipside of that is that women get propositioned for sex far more than just about any man”

Women don’t proposition verbally, they invite propositions with their eyes. It may well be true that women don’t experience the same steady sense of urgency that men have. But when women fall they fall hard.

The male sex drive is much stronger (and more consistent) than the female sex drive; it takes FAR more discipline for a man to remain a virgin, than for a woman

Ummm….. no. With rare exceptions, women have far more sexual opportunities than men, and must presumbly exercise considerable discipline to resist them. Unless a woman is catastrophically overweight, ugly, or deformed, she can get “laid” just about any time she wants. (And the “unless” is questionable… i’ve heard that even troll women can get sex whenever they want it.) Most women don’t, most of the time, because they are holding out for a man who meets her standards — and if they are religous, waiting til the wedding. But, the opportunity is ALWAYS there for the taking, if the woman gets desperate enough — or drinks too much.

Whereas, for most men, the lack of female interest is so great and pervasive, that there are a large number of men who are “incels” — involuntary celibates. A few “alpha” males can get sex with little effort but for most men it’s a herculean undertaking.

I can’t stand Mark Driscoll at all! He is a heretic liar and feminist shill. He is only concerned with money. What we call a preacher of filthy lucre. He uses the latest feminist arguments and gives it a slightly “biblical” twist- just enough truth to make it sound like it’s biblical that is- to make it palatable to the masses. His rants about young men being nothing but animistic sex fiends and lazy loafers really rates on my nerves. It;s a virtual shame fest.

His latest video goes along with the current rape culture in America. He uses outdated and faulty statistics to push a feminist agenda. I wonder if he doesn’t get money from feminists to promote his male hate speeches? It amazes me he still has any men in his church. I couldn’t stand to listen to his messages all the way through before I just had to make comments on the you tube channel. I have made it my latest ambition to rebuff and belittle every single thing this money grubbing mangina has to say. I said in one comment that if he truly believes that there is so much sexual assault in his church and so much immortality that he has to constantly debase and blame men for them perhaps he actually needs to do his job of preaching the gospel. Jesus changes hearts and lives- not Mark Driscoll. The gospel of Mark Driscoll won’t do a thing for you but give you a head ache.

He- like most feminists and white knights- believe men can’t control their hormones and like wild beasts they rape and impregnate young women en mass. I guess the young ladies sit in their pew terrified to speak to guys in the church for fear that they might be attacked by some horny lustful guy in the parking lot? LOL Then there are the messages on men have to get married- it not they are not in God’s will. Really? What bible verses is that from? LOL what irks me is that so many people support this idiot. I guess people can’t or won’t read the Bible for themselves. I have many bible versions as well as commentaries and I haven’t found a single commentary nor Greek lexicon that tells me that I am not in God’s will if i am not married. The reason he is doing this is because lustful women and their biological clocks are clicking away and they are afraid they’re going to run out of time! LOL

As usual he knows that women are the main supporters in the church- the ones who buy the most self help relationship books so it behooves him to pander to them. He sells books- has conferences on marriage- etc. There are many ways he is making money on male-shaming. What I call male shaming for profits. I like to call him Christian Mangina man! He married his wife after they were screwing around and he got “saved” supposedly.

There is lots of money in starting your own church and religion that’s how the Jehovah Witnesses got started and the Mormons. Joseph Smith- founder of Mormonism- was a big womanizer.

I have never seen a video of Driscoll actually reading from the Bible- he may quote a verse here or there, but it is usually taken out of context for his latest man-bashing rant. It is also funny how when I post a comment about his feministic ideology I’ll get a totally clueless brain dead female tell me I’m a misogynist. Totally hilarious- I asked one lady if she even knew what that meant just how stating facts is in any way misogynistic? I didn’t get a reply! Go figure? LOL

You guys will always have unhappy marriages and I’ll tell you why. You are trained to excoriate the woman who sleeps with you early as a “slut” because you assume she has early sex with every other man. Not so.

She’s sleeping with you because her body senses that both your genes are extremely compatible and you’d make good babies. Since this is all nature is interested in, it creates an intense desire for her to sleep with you and quickly reproduce the best possible human being to propogate the species.

But because you have been trained to shun her as a slut whom you erroneously believe is sleeping with every other man that early, you reject her! You then idolise the girl who feels no chemical attraction and is able to wait months to sleep with you (because you would not make good babies and nature is not that invested in the pairing). Because you stick it out and court her, and the man she would make good babies with rejected her as a slut, she ends up accepting your wedding proposal. In a year, she has lost all sexual interest because it wasn’t there in the first place and the relationship goes down the tubes. Meanwhile, the man with whom she has intense sexual interest can get sex from your “virtuous” wife any time because nature wants those good babies anyway it can get them.

It;s why so many men are raising babies that are not theirs!

If you had married the girl who wanted sex on the second date and called you all the time, she would have adored you forever and never get tired of sex with you. But you called her a slut and shamed away your “natural”partner and instead you married the woman whom the church through years of moral garbage conditioning told you was the right one. The male leaders cultivated that message because they feared that the woman with such strong passion for them would also have it for every other man. It’s man’s biggest mistake and he’s still making it. So his wife feels little or no sexual chemistry and therefore cannot maintain a sexual relationship over 50 years of marriage. Then you all wonder why so many marriages end in divorce.
Just remember that every virtuous woman is someone’s whore. And when that man comes calling, she will always be at the ready!

Let’s read the Bible for ourselves instead of relying on feminist shills like Driscoll. I have a MDIV degree from Liberty University myself and I can tell you that what Driscoll is pushing is anti-Bible and anti-male. He is nothing but a money grubbing heretical piece of garbage. Anyone who believes anything Driscoll preaches is a biblically illiterate moron. The people who go to his church must be brainwashed feminist drones for sure. I’m sure people would be upset with my counter arguments but that is because they have been so indoctrinated with radical feminism that they don’t know what the truth is anymore. Why can’t people just think for themselves? I think Christian people today are just plain lazy. And many want to justify their sin by using Bible verses taken out of context to try to make themselves feel better to soothe their consciences. Then there are also those who want other people to read the Bible and spoon feed it to them too. When you allow other people to teach you without you reading for yourselves how do you know if you are being taught the truth if you don’t read the Bible and study the Bible for yourself? You don’t!

Paul told Timothy to “study to how thyself approved.” 2 Timothy 2:15. Remember the Bereans? Acts 17:11 talks about the Bereans of old. These were common people who studied the Bible for themselves. They didn’t rely only on the pastor. This is how people today should respond to Bible teaching. They should be diligent to reprimand their pastor if he is teaching them false doctrines like these noble Christian people. Mark 9 :42 says, “ And whoever is a cause of trouble to one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him if a great stone was put round his neck and he was dropped into the sea.” This is a very strong warning to pastors who preach false doctrines. Jesus calls anyone who is a new believer a babe in Christ. This doesn’t actually mean it is a physical child, but a new believer. Christ warns pastor of the severe penalty for teaching false doctrines. He holds those of who preach the word more accountable than the laity. Why? Because they are spiritual leaders and usually they have much more Bible education than the average church person.

These women love this feminist garbage because it caters to their lusts and their pride. They can get away with any sin they want without any repercussions from the pastors. Sorry ladies- just because your pastor isn’t man enough to preach the truth about personal responsibility (on your part) and he excuses your sexual immortally. The Bible condemns your sin- it doesn’t excuse it. This just proves he is a heretic false preacher who is catering to the lusts of immoral loose women. I’ve had young ladies on you tube say to me that it’s the guys job to teach the young lady they are dating?! Really? Where did you learn this prattle from Missy? Mark Driscoll’s teaching? He said it is in the Bible. Yes- the Apostle Paul talks about the ladies being quiet and learning from their husbands. I Corinthians 14:34- Let women keep quiet in the churches: for it is not right for them to be talking; but let them be under control, as it says in the law.
And if they have a desire for knowledge about anything, let them put questions to their husbands privately: for talking in the church puts shame on a woman.

But first of all one of the rules of exegesis is to know the historical context of any passage of scripture. Women, in Paul’s day, did not have access to public education. Only wealthy men went to school. In Jewish culture young men up to adult (usually 15 or 16 years of age) went to synagogue school to learn the Torah (First five books of the O.T.) where they also learned to read and write. The husbands knew the Bible and the ladies were very inquisitive. They were so inquisitive that they were making a commotion in the church keeping the pastor from preaching so Paul told the ladies to ask questions to their husbands at home. You can’t preach when everyone is asking questions the whole time. That is the cultural background of the passage.
This does not mean that in modern times women must be taught by their husbands. This is demeaning to both men and women today. This implies that women are ignorant and can’t learn and reason by themselves. This is also used as an excuse to let the ladies get away with sin- because they didn’t know better. Their husbands or boyfriends didn’t teach them. Baloney! This puts too much pressure on men also. It makes the men responsible for not only their sins but the sins of their wives. This is totally ridiculous! See how this aligns with the entitlement and babyification of females that is so prevalent in today’s society? Sorry ladies but you are adults too. Yes- men are the head of the household but no verses anywhere in the Bible says that women can’t think or have no responsibility for their personal actions. When Adam and Eve sinned- Guess what- Eve was punished by God and Adam was not blamed for Eve’s sin. She was punished for her own part in the sin of mankind (mankind means both the man and woman!). This is called personal responsibility and this is something that feminism is trying to wrangle away from women. Feminism wants women to have all the same rights and privileges of men without any of the responsibility. This is turning women into babies. Again sorry ladies, but when Jesus comes back and you have to answer for your sins (sins of commission and omission) you can’t blame your husband or boyfriend for your sins. Some people are going to have a very rude awakening one day. Be sure your sins will find you out. It is no wonder there will be so many people saying “Lord Lord! But Jesus rejects them for he doesn’t know them. You can’t rely on the salvation of others to save you. You have to accept Jesus on your own and take responsibility for your own actions. You have to mean it- if you are saved you are going to mean it. You are going to do your best to live a pure life. Don’t be like the catholic’s who think you can sin and run to the priest and say I’m sorry and go right back to the same sin the next day. This is not repentance. Repentance means to turn from your sin.
Then there are those who say don’t judge! And they quote the story about Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. John 8:11- When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
They fail to read the last part of the verse. Jesus tells the woman to go and sin no more after he forgives her of her sins. It is funny how that is never mentioned. This verse is used as a justification for continually sinning as long as I say I’m sorry. Nope- then you are not saved at all with that attitude. Ladies do this all the time. Don’t judge me they say when they have been living in immorality for years and then they meet a nice man and want to marry him. Going from man to man and living with each man and having babies by different men and still claim to be a born again Christian! What hypocrisy! Two verses remind me of the consequences of sin- “Be sure your sin will find you out,” Numbers 32:23. And “sow to the wind and reap the whirlwind.” Hosea 8:7 These verses tell us there are consequences for our sins and you can’t hide them- or excuse them. You can’t blame anyone else for your sins.

I Corinthians 6:18 says, “Do you not see that your bodies are part of the body of Christ? how then may I take what is a part of the body of Christ and make it a part of the body of a loose woman? such a thing may not be.
Or do you not see that he who is joined to a loose woman is one body with her? for God has said, The two of them will become one flesh. But he who is united to the Lord is one spirit.
Keep away from the desires of the flesh. Every sin which a man does is outside of the body; but he who goes after the desires of the flesh does evil to his body. “ Paul tells us two things- flee sexual sins (immorality) and loose women! Yes I said it! Many single mothers are loose women! What would you call them? They jump from one man to another and have sex with all of the men they date. That is a loose immoral woman. And no I am not excusing the man either. A man should be pure and virtuous also.

This is pure hypocrisy! Then these women are devastated and call a Christian man names or make fun of him nor respect a virgin man because he doesn’t want to marry her. She is a slut. If he lives in immorality then he is a slut also, but if he is pure and celibate then he is living right according to the Bible. Both men are women who are single (unmarried) are supposed to be pure and celibate. And yes you can live a pure and virtuous life if you truly are a believer. There is no excuse for a true believer (male or female) to live in immorality. (Sexual sin)

@Ben >> “This does not mean that in modern times women must be taught by their husbands.”

I think you’re missing something vital about Christian marriage.

Also… given how a Christian wife’s friends, pastor, and marriage books are all going to point her in the opposite direction of what she needs to do in regards to marriage and/or divorce, it is of utmost importance that the husband take the lead in teaching and explaining the scriptures to his wife. He is the only source of straight, loving truth she is liable to get… and the only one in a position to hold her accountable to Christ.

Some guy- yes I agree with what your saying, but I am just trying to make a point that women are accountable for their actions and that they are not children like the feminists are trying to make them out to be. Women can’t blame men for their behavior or misdeeds. That is what secular and non-secular feminists are tyring to do today- that is to take all the responsibility away from women and their own descisions and blame it on the man. That is not only un-biblical but idiotic. And it also demeans both men and women and doubly burdens men. So yes i see your point. I hope you understand the point I’m making also. And when I find a church I will insist my parishiners avoid the “Christian” writing circuit- most of the books on the market are misandric and chalked full of heretical teachings. I agree that men need to hold women accountable for thier actions. And also men should be the head of the family- including being the spiritual head- he should take the lead. That is something I would definately push and teach. Sorry but since I am a single guy and I’m not really intersted in marriage- I will probably be like the Apostle Paul ans stay singel and celibate- I don’t always draw the same conclusions that married guys do. But again i understand and see your point of view even though some of your points don’t apply to me. I am not the head of any woman since I am single, but I have no problem correcting the views of a wayward female under my preaching.

I really am starting to understand some of Pauls writings:
– womans head should be covered ( to show that she is under the care of her husband to the angels – this is pretty wild. Indicates that women get deceived very easily and demonstrating submission in humbling protects her.)
– why Paul did not permit women to instruct men.
– stayed single and avoided the hassle.
I remember Gibbons wrote that the one of major faults of the Roman Empire occurred when women were given a voice in the Senate.
Sadly true that history is repeating itself – the destruction is enormous.

Here is what the Bible says: according to the Torah, if a man has sex with a virgin who isn’t betrothed to someone else, he’s required to marry her and forbidden from divorcing her. An engaged woman was the same as a married woman, and if she had sex with anyone but her husband, both she and the paramour were guilty of capital adultery, and could be put to death on the testimony of two witnesses. A woman who is not a virgin but presents herself as one when getting married could likewise be executed at the testimony of her husband; if, however, her father produced the bloody bed-sheet proving her husband to be a liar, he would be fined, scourged, and then forbidden from divorcing her, and she would be acquitted.

Proverbs calls a married woman who propositions, seduces or otherwise seeks out other men a death trap. No matter how alluring she may be, stay away, because she’ll get you killed. Even if her husband never discovers the betrayal, God sees it, and He will requite. Conversely, the virtuous woman is praised as a good wife and mother, and her fear of the Lord is true beauty that shines even in her old age, long after the shallow appearances of the loose women have faded. Indeed, even her physical appearance may show it, for she ages naturally, while the shallow woman becomes repulsive in her unnatural attempts to defy time with ridiculous-looking cosmetics, plastic surgery, botox and clothes that started looking pathetic when she was 25.

What does the New Testament say? Celibacy is better than marriage, but marriage is still good. However, marriage is also indissoluble except by death. Therefore, consider a divorced person as off-limits as a married person, unless the marriage was never valid in the first place (for reasons such as fraud), or the person has only since been baptized. This applies to both sexes. Otherwise, let the divorced couple reconcile, or else let them both remain celibate until one of them dies; only then is the other free to marry. All sex outside of marriage is sin. All sex that uses unnatural instruments or orifices is sin. All sex that subverts procreation is sin.

Darlock, just to be clear, “Man up and marry those sluts” is only for men who are already having sex with them. Like it or not, if you’re fornicating, you have a choice: flee the relationship or marry her. If she’s a slut and you’re fornicating with her, you deserve what you get by marrying her.

I would have walked out while he was speaking. I’ve walked out of a church when the preacher said to always bring your Bible, notebook and checkbook to “his” church!!! So, this IDIOT on the video would not pose a challenge. I might have even yelled back!! LOL!!! I hate being threatened by anyone. God convicts my heart. Man cannot do that.

Amen! This blog is so complete and insightful that I have nothing to add, except thanks y’all for putting it all in black and white confirming that I’m not crazy or delusional when it comes to the state of the world. And oh, Suz (as opposed to Sue or Suzy) sounds rather lesbionic.

“Now that you are married, you are known to be “a catch” (social proofing) and so having waited to have sex means that you are more likely to be faithful to your wife, which is a definite plus.”
——————

I’d just like to point out that this is just a common rationalization that women and blue-pillers spin to explain the preselection phenomenon. There is a fallacy at the very heart of this argument because, in order for the (preselected) man to be with that woman who is attracted to him, he would necessarily have to betray the woman (or wife) that he has now, thus making himself unfaithful.

The truth is that preselection is popular just because it is (high mate value), not because it signifies faithfulness. To explain that it does is to make a serious blunder.

Women started having this fast paced sex because they have a nature to please men. They want to please them because they want to be loved . They may want to be Virgins when they marry and they get out of Catholic School and Boys start telling them they do not have to wait and they have Been BRAINWASHED. This really is what happens SO BE WARNED> My husband of 32 years did not even know till recently, that is until I mentioned it to him that all Birth control Pills carry risks of Blood clots and stroke! We women want to please so bad we risk death!

What you paint as altruism and victimhood is no different than what any man does, we sin because the lure is stronger than our values at that moment. Then women start finding ways to blame men, and make it seem as if they have been manipulated and have little to no agency of their own. Oddly at the same time as women turn the helpless act up to 10, they clamor for control, overt and covert, and one of the ways they manage it is through sex.

Sorry Cecilia but you’ve been lied to, and believed it. Christian women , secular woman…..women in general do not simply have sex to make men love them. No sale.

1. To manipulate a man into giving her something she wants.
2. To satisfy primal sexual urges with the most attractive men she can sleep with.

Women sleep with the hot men for the sex, full stop. They are not having sex with attractive men becuase they are looking for love. They do it for the hot monkey sex with attractive alpha men.

Women sleep with the less attractive men in order to get something: favors, monetary benefits, affirmation, validation, a relationship, marriage.

I don’t agree with those who believe that beta traits are “attractive”. They are not. Women desire beta traits like loyalty, fidelity, integrity, honesty, industriousness and dignity because those traits make the man useful to her. She desires them, but they do not make a man sexually attractive. She is attracted to traits like confidence, dominance, good physique, and displays of power and authority because those traits indicate reproductive fitness and ability to protect her and her offspring.

Christian men and women should look to Christ first. One of the fruits of the Spirit is SELF CONTROL. If a woman OR a man lacks self control as far as sex goes it is a sign of living in the flesh. This back and forth is demeaning to both men and women. If you want to know what to do, look to Jesus, who respected women. He appeared to Mary M. first, who I personally believe represents the Church, Christ’s church who he is making himself ready for. Jesus did not demean women, and he CERTAINLY would not call them vulgar names.

If we are truly Christians we will emulate Christ. So obviously if a woman wants to have sex with you outside of marriage, it’s a bad idea. Lack of self control on HER part and also on the MAN’S part if you sleep with her.

Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord, will enter My kingdom.’ Many professing Christians will not be invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb. That kind of makes everything else irrelevant, at least to me. Jesus was the embodiment of self-control.

I don’t even know what kind of site this is or how I ended up on it. Re your response, the Bible says that we do not need at teacher, that anyone has the capability to interpret the Bible. Why do you think Jesus appeared to Mary Magdeline first upon being raised?? I am curious. Was it to teach that SLUT a lesson??? Excuse my sarcasm.

“I don’t even know what kind of site this is or how I ended up on it.”

Then go forth, and sin no more. You do indeed have a teacher, and it is the deceiver represented in your modernist satanic beliefs. For the sake of your soul, reform yourself to conform to the truth, or annihilation awaits you.

Just some of the comments that I have read. I don’t think that putting women into categories helps anybody. And I am serious about this, I am not saying anything to be offensive. If a woman is promiscuous then that is a self control thing and I don’t think that is something anyone can fix except for God. “You will know them by their fruits.” And I am talking about myself also, not just pointing fingers. I looked at the type of website this is. Feminism is what has allowed women to go to school and vote. I feel fortunate to live in this country as a woman. It just hurts my heart to see women called sluts by so-called Christian men, that is my problem.

You try and deceive with soft words that sound agreeable. But your values are flawed. You will indeed know them by their fruits, and the fruits of feminism and modernism are poison to the soul.

I do not offer you condemnation, merely a warning. As you call yourself a “Christian Woman”. Modernism is incompatible with the revealed truth. Feminism is modernist. Were you a true christian and not deceived you would admonish the ‘sluts’ with the same furor you know condemn men of the LORD.

When that word is used on the site it is used to describe the woman in the verbage that it is formally intended to be used.

Slut has been deemed dirty simply to make those actions more socially acceptable.

Another thing is Feminism is straight from the Devil himself. It has destroyed the very core of human relationships, the dynamic between a man and a woman in the proper way. It has empowered women at the expense of men while making those same women unhappy because they can’t find an attractive man because they have emasculated them all.

Feminism is contrary to the bible, just one verse off the top of my head:

Genesis 3:16-

Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

That’s the basis right there for the whole dynamic between man and woman. This is supported by not only religious bible but atheists that study gender relationships as well.

Women at their control yearn to be under the leadership of strong man and will test such a man. When the man is a pervesion and allows the woman to assume power and control, very bad things happen. The woman becomes irriatable and unhappy and the man is made to be weak and unhappy as well.

This site documents the hard truths but try to stick with it. If you do you will find that your life can blossom in ways that the world of feminism can’t even touch.

Then you want a passive, non-judgmental “spiritualist” who will be cast into the lake of fire along with your dad and brother. Personal, non-judgmental, wimp/queer Jesus is a deception of modernism and you must reject it.

Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord, will enter My kingdom.’ Many professing Christians will not be invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb.

Indeed. “Go forth and sin no more” (John 8:11) is what you need to pay attention to. Following your personal Jesus will only serve you to hear the rest of that. “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

It just hurts my heart to see women called sluts by so-called Christian men, that is my problem.

You mean like the Bible labels those who partake in any other sin? We don’t call ’em “fornicators” but we use the common language of today. I diagnose this as a case of TradCon Tourettes. It hurts your heart to see men calling out women for sin and holding them responsible for it.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

I will not admonish anyone!! Who am I to do that?? That is God’s job. I don’t recall ever reading in the Bible to “admonish the sluts.’ LOL

You mean Romans 15:14, Colossians 3:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, 2 Thessalonians 3:15, 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 and numerous other Scriptures aren’t in your Bible? Oh wait, you must have the one with the Book of Oprah in it, right? We have the mind of Christ if we abide in Him so we know and it becomes an incumbancy. Better to be warned before you hear those words of the Lord by us. And we really don’t want blood on our hands for not sounding the warning.

I don’t want a Christian man who calls women sluts. Clear? My dad and brother were very respectful people and I guess I expect that from all men. My mistake.

You want a passive non-judgmental spiritist then who honors the personal Jesus and follows after him himself. More the merrier on that wide path, I suppose. I’d rather have the narrow one thank you.

“Ok, I will re-rephrase my comment….I don’t want a Christian man who calls women sluts.”
What if they are? If someone habitually steals stuff, may I call him a thief? If someone habitually drinks to excess, may I call him an alcoholic?

If not, why not? Jesus called the pharisees “unmarked graves” (“whited sepulchres”) because they made people unclean without those people knowing that they had become tainted. Was that ok?

“You men are all so cruel. Just because a woman has 300+ sexual partners, what right do you have to call her a slut. How would you know abotu her feeelings. In any event the only reason she has copious sex is because she has been persuaded to do so, by men who made her unhaaapy. It’s all your fault and you should all man up and marry her. Where did Jesus ever admonish a woman by calling her unmarriagable, and don’t give me that Mary Magdeleine; she was just a poor girl who never did anyone any harm, and was merely looking for Mr Right, finding herself and completing her Masters in Oriental studies. I address you men in the words of the gospel, to go forth and blogviate no more”.

Little Miss Opus on a mission from God wearing sunglasses and with a half packet of cigarettes . Hit it.

She repeatedly objects to calling women sluts. ALL women. She does not allow for the possibility that the women in question might actually be sluts. She does not allow for the possibility that those commenting here are not referring to all women as sluts. She simply objects to the use of the term “slut” (or “harlot”) in any form, at any time, to refer to any woman.

This is the Team Woman tactic of showing solidarity with all women at the expense even of husbands, brothers, and sons. It is excusing slutty behavior, it is winking and nodding and looking the other way at sluthood, and it is denying sluthood’s existence and injurious consequences.

Worst of all for you, Christian Woman, it is either inability or unwillingness to identify, confront and rebuke sin. Because if you are unable to do that, you will be unable or unwilling to help your sister “go and sin no more”.

Thank you Furious Ferret for your thoughtful response. That is my understanding of the relationship between men and women also.

ymb said (Then you want a passive, non-judgmental “spiritualist” who will be cast into the lake of fire along with your dad and brother. Personal, non-judgmental, wimp/queer Jesus is a deception of modernism and you must reject it.)

My dad and brother were/are anything but passive/wimp/queer. My dad homesteaded in Alaska when it first became a state and he passed away after an incredibly brave fight with cancer in January. My brother was a rescue swimmer in the Navy and is now a firefighter in a dangerous area of the country and routinely gets called to shootings, stabbings, rapes, etc. You are right that they were non-judgmental, but that is what the Bible tells us to be.

RTP – you are of course correct, but even a Pope (St. Gregory the Dialogist) made the mistake in linking the seven demons to the seven deadly sins and said that she might have been a prostitute. (The orthodox/Orthodox teaching on this matter is that the seven demons were sent to torture her by the devil in wrath for her living such a pious life.)

As for Mary of Bethany, wouldn’t that have been the sister of Lazarus and Martha? I’m not sure if the Church knows the name of the sinful woman told to go and sin no more. Perhaps all the confusion of calling the various Mary’s harlots comes from St. Mary of Egypt who had been a harlot at one point?

OOps I left out a comma, when I ~,said this is really what happens I did not mean the brainwashing happens I meant this is what is said. Men and women are responsible when there is premarital and It is not just one doing it. On modern approaches being feminist in nature well this is what my BibleDictionary area, says..It was in the Christian era that women’s full dignity was first appreciated.Christ insisted on the equality of man and women before God,and taught that the same moral law applies to both. Remember Potiphars wife was turned down when as a married woman she tried to seduce , I hope that I did not seem to be condoning. I think of all sin as mistakes and in order to not hurt others We accept guidance by the Commandments. Which as Jesus said in The Sermon on the Mount ,are fulfilled by Love. I think if a young man turns down a young women it is for their mutual benifit ,sometimes knowing why something happens helps with understanding. If a girls is not guilded well at home by Parents,,sometimes and does not feel loved she could fall for the worldly ways even if she is learning from Religious instruction;I hence I wrote the warning. Boys are sometimes taught one thing but also winked at for their promiciousness. I would not use that particular word though to describe someone who is promisuous. I probably would use a more Biblical one.
I knew someone whose mother would call her a Whore, and she would Reply..Adding a bit of Humor here,” if I am a Whore, where’s all my Money? “..Always made me laugh to hear her tell it.

“they were non-judgmental, but that is what the Bible tells us to be.”

No, the Bible does not tell people not to be judgmental. This is a fundamental misreading of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. You are reading this as forbidding believers from judging at all. It is impossible to go through life without making judgments about people. Remember that the Bible also tells us to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves.

“Being polite to women is a strength, not a weakness.”

Some women deserve that politeness; the others deserve only common courtesy as they are shuffled in and out of our lives as quickly as possible.

So “Christian Woman”? How do you want Godly men to respond to sin and unrepentant sinners who insist on flagrantly flaunting their obnoxious sin that is destroying their country, their churches and their families? Here’s another clue, as men, we are generally caring less and less what women think. Women have failed in THEIR leadership roles already (giving over instead to feminism rather than the teaching of the Gospel in Church) and now they (and you) are trying to bully men into toeing your line. No thanks.

If people sin they should feel bad about it, it should cause guilt. If it doesn’t then how will they repent from it? The soft (feminine) way of addressing hypergamy and slutiness has clearly failed. Next?

Ah, the ‘cast the first stone’ fallacy, much beloved by unrepentant sinners everywhere. Nope, doesn’t apply, sorry. We are not attempting to put to death the harlots of today, we are but warning good Christians of the danger they represent. Explaining danger does not at all equal starting an execution. You would wish one of these women upon your brother, that you would attempt to silence the warning cry? For Shame.

‘Being polite to women is a strength, not a weakness.’ Prove that one (good luck). I am polite to ladies, of which there are too few. Being polite to women? I have first hand experience in how that can be used against me.

Just some of the comments that I have read. I don’t think that putting women into categories helps anybody
———————————————————
Christian Woman…..lets test this.
May I assume that you would see “putting people in categories” as generally bad……somehow most women feel that way, they reject statistics that way even saying everyone is different and we cannot generalize.
But ok, here you refer to calling women sluts as categorizing them.

Lets take a very different situation then.

The poor downtrodden Christian wife posts that her husband has been taking his work stress out on her by raising his voice at home. She posts for advice among a bunch of really godly women (eh?)…..after a few sympathetic posts, a women WILL…(100% sure) TELL the poor downtodden wife that she is being abused…..DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT HE IS ABUSING YOU!!!!!!!

Maybe impossible, but plop yourself into that fray, free yourself from the trick of this question being here, and answer honestly…..would you chime in “oh no, sure he is doing something wrong but I just don’t think categorizing is a good thing”?

If you say you would do that…..I simply do not and will not believe you, and what you are seeing is one of the many cognitively dissonant products of the rationalization hamster (droppings).

Christian Woman has already placed the men on this site in the category of ‘sexist pigs’ and has thus failed her own test.

Also, making a judgment call is entirely different to passing Judgment on a person. Why do so many Christians miss this point? In the Bible, when Jesus spoke to the men about to stone the woman for her crimes, those men had passed Judgment and the woman’s punishment was death. The warning from Christ being that if you’re going to pass punishment on people, in God’s name, be damn sure that you’re not guilty yourself. It has zero, nothing to do with making a judgment call. The Bible continuously calls on one to make judgment calls with respect to relationships and to protect ourselves from the evil of others. One cannot do this without making a judgment call. Christian Woman’s point is therefore entirely moot.

If we were able to stone to death whores, sluts, slags, baby mommas and frivorced women for their crimes, she might have a point.

A few proper questions to ask Christian Woman would be why she feels the need to protect promiscuous women from the consequences of their own sins? Does she not understand that the sins of whores will be felt by her and other faithful sisters as their own marriage prospects decrease as time goes by? Does she not realise that unless their sins are brought to light, they cannot go and ‘sin no more’ by pure reason of not being aware of their sin?

The greater sin Feminist Hater is for a man of greater agency (a patriarch) to expose the sin of the person of lesser agency (the slut). Woman cannot be expected to actually be held to account for their own bad behavior.

I like how the feminist can blame the greater inherit agency of the patriarchs while simultaneously claiming a total lack of responsibility AND a continuous clamor that they are/should be equal. It’s too funny.

empath, I’m not really for it nor against it. My quibble is the idea that Christians don’t like making judgment calls on women who are sluts but seem to see no irony in the very fact the we live in a society where courts, filled with normal human beings, pronounce Judgments everyday with real world consequences such as death and prison time. If ‘Christian Woman’ says we must not be judgmental of sluts, then she needs to start telling Judges to let criminals free without fear of prosecution, for prosecution is in direct conflict with her ideals, as it ends in Judgment of the person by other human beings and not Jesus or God.

May I ask why you reserve a special set of problematic for Christians in this particular hypocrisy? I mean I get generalized hypocrisy, of which we can all sample from time to time, I don’t get the urge to use “Christian” as a modifier when describing a particular one.

Quite simple, in this case it is Christians who use the ‘Don’t judge, lest ye be Judged’ as a reason for not calling into account those who sin against God. In this case, what secular people or other religious people do is of no real concern as I am comparing Christian ideals to Churchian ideals.

I think we may be having the same misunderstanding we had awhile back. When I use Christian here I mean ‘Churchianity’. I hope that makes some sense.

1. Thou shalt never judge a woman
2. Thou shalt never judge a woman
3. Thou shalt never judge a woman (and there is biblical authority)
4. Thou shalt never judge a woman
5. Women are beyond criticism
6. Women are all special snowflakes
7. It is always the fault of men
8. Men are just as bad
9. Thou shalt never judge a woman (don’t even think about it)
10. I cannot believe men write this stuff (hand me the smelling salts).

Fist off,I know , of a Minister who cheated on his wife with another woman who played the Organ music at the church It had to be BOTH of their Faults. If he said no it would not have happened if ..he said No it would not have happened BOTH had an equal share in it. It ruined his marriage and he is now divorced. Many men,,young OR Old will not turn down a women . A woman I know was trying to find the “ONE”, by seeing if he would turn her down,she made an offer but remained celibate, she dated a lot of men but never found that guy! She was the type that just asked to see the result! Going from date to date she dated almost 300 men all the same response!! They all said they would, Isn’t the teaching If a man Joins with a prostitute he becomes one flesh. Are their then me that do NOT do this ,YES! I Know a certain young man that waited two years for his wife It happens,some men are not whores!!

“A woman I know was trying to find the “ONE”, by seeing if he would turn her down,she made an offer but remained celibate, she dated a lot of men but never found that guy! She was the type that just asked to see the result! Going from date to date she dated almost 300 men all the same response!! ”

Wait a minute so if she does not have sex she is still bad? This happened over many years . She loved all of them but they just did not pass the test. She wanted one that would not jump into bed and found it to be rare.

“Wait a minute so if she does not have sex she is still bad? This happened over many years . She loved all of them but they just did not pass the test. She wanted one that would not jump into bed and found it to be rare.”

And one more stupid entitled women with no common sense becauses a cat lady. Hooray!!!!!!!!

You can’t see how propositing the sex to a guy on a date as a test is just plain wrong?

That’s the whole reason we’re on the date. We want the sex. Even Christian guys ultimately want the sex or else they won’t put up with women like you or your friend.

It’s the equivalent to taking a man in adject poverty and then when this normally law abiding guy is making a purchase at the cash register, you the clerk whispers, here I’m leaving the till open for you , take all the money. When the poor person does so, you promptly pull a gun on him and call the police.

Mr. Ferret, I just read what you wrote about the till. My husband when he was young turned down an offer of sex ,given because the girl thought he expected it and she was very grateful. Are you saying then that Women are always the ones who need to have the sense? That they have all the power in this decision? Because married men have to be strong enough to turn down any sickness that can run havock in his family due to such indescresions,once he is married to have his family survive.

I just want to say one last thing. I feel thankful to be single after reading the hateful comments written about me here. So thank you for that.

Also, The Church in the Bible is represented by a woman. Christ is represented by a man. I too believe that Satan is at work ruining the relationships of men and women, since they represent Jesus being united with His church. The marriage ceremony symbolizes the Wedding Supper of the Lamb. Blaming women or blaming men is futile. It’s all futility except for loving God and loving our neighbors and preparing for His return.

Also I noticed from your comments that you all may be Catholic and that might be why we are having misunderstandings. I respect the Catholic faith and don’t they or you will go to hell, I just don’t agree with many of the beliefs. I am an evangelical. I live in the United States and go to a church called Christ the King. I have several disabilities, neurological and physical, and see my role in life to be kingdom minded. My role is not to have children (I actually can’t have kids, so that is a good belief for me to have.) Please don’t make anymore negative comments toward me and I won’t make anymore about you. The church has to stand together. Amen come Lord Jesus

There is something called honor and common decency. You display none of those traits. You are everything that is wrong with Christianity and Christian women in general.

You follow the technicalities of the law while obliterating the very spirit and essense of it. It’s simply superfluous righteousness that is at it’s very core a lie and riddled with hypocrisy and deceit.

Your heart is black as coal I assure you while the smiling facade of a indignant pharsiee is shown on the exterior.

I knew the woman many years ago like 30 years ago, It is possible I guess that she did not tell me the whole story. It is possible no one has. Ever. But she did say to the people involved there would be a test beforehand . Could be things have changed since then.

Cecilia, I really don’t find anything honourable in what your friend did to those men. We already have Satan to tempt us. I’m sure he appreciates the help in doing his work, but your friend really is superfluous at this point.

And for what it’s worth, I am a Christian man and I would never wait two years. I’d wait til marriage, but she’d get one proposal and “I want to think about this” means “No”.

Koevoet, she was not old enough when they started going out,(She was worth waiting for) They had fun like running playing basketball; doing athletic things together and He married her. He is my son.My son was maybe 8 years or so older. Not really up on all the ages.Also my Grandfather did not have sex with my Grandmother till they were married 7 months because he wanted to make sure that she was not pregnant when she got married to him!

… Now I’m confused. Are you expressing pride that your grandfather wanted an ironclad guarantee that your grandmother wasn’t going to start off their marriage by cuckolding him? It’s almost like he didn’t trust any claims she made about her virtue. Imagine a man doing this now and the reaction it would get!

Also, not even including her mindgames, there is absolutely no way your friend met 300 men for one-off dates and “loved them all” by any meaningful measure of the word. Except that one… but that’s what you’re saying didn’t happen..

There is this idea about finding a mate that says a man and woman should date for a long time so they can get to know each other and figure out whether marriage is going to work between them. This is probably the wrong approach in looking for a potential wife. You can figure out in two or three months at the outside whether a woman is a potential wife — including personality, temperament, life goals, and basic compatibility. If she’s not, cut her loose right away. If she is, you can get to know her better. This keeps male investment to an absolute minimum.

No not proud of anyone or anything. Alexander. The woman who did the research still loves all , she became a nun.There are different kinds of love. My Grandfather was a good looking guy who could have cancelled the marriage if she had been pregnant by another man. I do think he was smart. I am Not accurate on number things, however I do know, My sons wife was not 21 yet so he waited. Trust God or Trust people. I believe the teaching is trust God. Love people. I myself married an Atheist/Agnostic. Not a recommendation, just more like a friendship. I recommend to know a guy for 2 years(as the Ideal) . Maybe at a work.. or in a group setting this may be possible. That is of course just my Opinion and you can of course disagree. It is hard to wait everyone knows that, although for some it may be easier than others. Lot of hormones in our meat and dairy nowa days Hormones decrease( in my exeperience) at age 30 for men ,but this may not be typical for All men.

There is something called honor and common decency. You display none of those traits. You are everything that is wrong with Christianity and Christian women in general.

You follow the technicalities of the law …………………………
Your heart is black as coal I assure you while the smiling facade of a indignant pharsiee is shown on the exterior.”

I am going to have to stand up for the Bible here: When Jesus referred to “The Law,” he was referring to the law of the old testament. The pharisees offended him because they did not accept his NEW gospel. The pharisees followed the law of the old testament. I didn’t say anything pertaining to the Law of Moses. If you are going to viciously attack someone, at least get your Bible straight.

u wanna marry me lol im so willing to wait…the whole sex thing before marriage doesn’t intrest me because i love God and im too special to have some idiot who doesnt value me enough to wait…and FYI those”christian” girls ur dating are nOT CHRISTIAN AT ALL….NO FORNICATORS will inherit the kingdom of heaven…remember that

One small example would be crying… Acceptable for women over many small things, not acceptable for men..I doubt many women would be attracted to guys who cried almost daily over any small thing.

I am pointing out that sex is vastly different for men and women.. That is how we are made.. Even the girl who says she has casual sex without emotions points out the sex she had was with people she was already emotionally connected to, her friends.

I have found that the most insecure women are the most sexual. Making a guy orgasm seems to be a quick fix for their insecurities. of course afterwards they feel like trash, or are so cold that they lack feelings completely.

I have NEVER met a secure, balanced, confident woman who could just have sex, get up, leave, and feel happy never seeing the person again.
Keeping legs closed = esteem, respect and virtue and good wife.

a) If a 6’2, good looking man with a job told me that he wanted to respect my virtue, I would be sitting by the phone waiting for his call like a 15 year old waiting on a Bieber video to load on her phone. As would many other women I know.

b) I’ve actually heard this argument before and (arrogantly) dismissed it out of hand. It’s been from non-Christian friends who weren’t about the silent pressure on them to get a woman in bed quickly. There’s pain on both sides of this equation that I don’t think gets addressed enough. I can’t imagine the sadness of two people who don’t actually want to have sex but feeling pushed by their own interpretation of what’s expected. Religion aside…how very sad.

c) Keep your head up. I promise that a woman with the character you’re askin about is real. Stay encouraged.

Good points, RuDee.
People, there ARE good Christian men and women out there.

In my 50s now, I’m one who walked carefully through the dating and sex minefield in my 20s before meeting my future wife just months after turning 30.

Sadly, I wasn’t perfect about the no-sex-before-marriage deal.
It’s a difficult thing as many of you know when one gets into their mid-late 20s and sees friends and family enjoying satisfying relationships and marriages.

Why can’t *** I *** have that too?

Here I was, what I thought was a “good Christian man,” a “gentleman” who’d NEVER pressure a Christian girl to do anything against her morals nor want to do anything that would make her uncomfortable at the expense of satisfying my desires.

But…. I seemed “invisible” to Christian women through most of college and beyond.

I think being ignored by women, CHRISTIAN women, of all things, through most of my 20s during the 1980s…. I think that refusal to get 2nd or 3rd dates from most helped me “lose enthusiasm” for my faith and look more toward satisfying myself in those very isolating and lonely times during my mid-late 20s.
Though I unfortunately “fell” a handful of times — I can count the number of times I had sex from high school to 30 on one hand !!!
In HS, when I wasn’t a believer, got involved with my girlfriend 3-4X.
Had sex all of twice in my 20s…
Wow!!! That’s a lot of sex !!!
Once ever 5 years!!!

It was the oddest thing….. I tried to be “good” and certainly knew what sin was.
And man, did I feel guilty over those 2 times I had casual sex in my mid-20s.

If I were single and in my 20s today, don’t know how I’d deal with the type of women I read about online in places like Dalrock’s great writings.

There are men and women of strong Christian character.
While many may not be “virgins,” a good many will likely have very low numbers, like with my wife, who only had 1 partner through all her 20s prior to meeting me in our 30s….
So take heart. God bless all.

I’m a unkissed virgin and A big part of why I want to narry is because I want to have God-approved sex with my husband as often as we can . Am I a slut? I’m serous if I strong sex drive and want use it in accorded with God law ( In a Christ-center marrige) I don’t sleep with men, I don’t and have never kiss any men. I read the bible I want to honor God and I think God plan for sex in marrige is Holy and beauty therefore
I am a slut

@ Andrea,
No, you’re not a “slut….”
Someone interested in enjoying sex with their beloved is definitely not slut material, especially a virgin like you.

The “sluts” referred to in these “manosphere” blogs are about women who “ride the carousel” and “rack up high partner counts” with guys they know are the wrong type of men while ignoring the many good Christian men in their midst.

After they’ve whored their vaginas to so many men and maybe have a fatherless child or two, once they get older, in their 30s, they “fall back” on the “beta” men and expect them to take-up the slack.
These “betas,” good Christian men, may be virgins or purposely didn’t engage in a lot of sex before marriage.

The real sluts ( Christian whores ) think just saying they’re “sorry” washes away their past and can’t understand why the good guys don’t want to have anything to do with them.

You are far from a “slut” and imo, are the kind of woman most men would want.

@van Rooinek,
Your situation sounds like mine in my 20s.
However, I wasn’t a “virgin.” I’d lost mine last year in high school to a Catholic girl who told me “I never tried anything….”
Honestly, I was perfectly content holding hands, kissing & hugging and “making out” and wasn’t interested in having sex with her (yes, there are men out there like that).

I take responsibility for my actions, but Christian girls, it isn’t wise to tell that guy you date he never tries things… It will give him “permission” to go farther than he should and like her, will find it difficult to resist.

I will say the 3-4X we had sex was always yucky, never felt great and I know we both felt a lot of guilt. A condom scare made me think about my future and I credit God for prompting me to ask her if we could stop.

Didn’t have any sex — nor ANY hand holding, kissing, hugging !!!! – through college & most of my 20s after becoming a Christian first year in college.

It’s odd how I did better @ dating in high school, when I didn’t really care about a woman’s Christian morality.
But….. when I was this “Christian gentleman” in my 20s who really wanted a relationship and was willing to wait for sex until marriage….. I was ignored by the “good church girls.”

It’s hardly a surprise that a guy ignored so long finally falls to temptation and @26, took advantage of some “opportunities” during a particularly lonely and isolating time in my life.
Those 2 casual encounters were horrible and I knew they were wrong and immediately felt remorse for my sin during and after.

Later, 1 of the 2 women I had sex with told me she was a Christian.
“As a Christian, I know it wasn’t right what we did that night, but it was the sexiest night of my life…” she told me.
I wasn’t acting “so Christian” @ the time and now realize she was likely attracted to the bad boys…

van Rooinek,
While I wasn’t a virgin like you until my marriage in my 30s, my 20s were horrible and I truly lived like a “reborn virgin.”
(Hey, if Christian women can call themselves that, so can men !!!!)

Not that it makes any difference, but I can count on one hand how many times (not partners) I had sex from 18-30.
5X in nearly 15 years? Wow !!! A very promiscuous man !!!

There are many of us like that who repented and like you, tried to live godly and sexually responsible lives with the Christian women we tried to date.

Clarence just saw this: wrote above comments years ago. It is detrimental for women to rush and men as well;because a woman can miss a pill ( by the way all the birth control pills carry risk of blood clots and stroke. Even aneurism~ I believe.) My husband did not know this so I guess most men do not know women risk a lot sometimes for sex. Most women want the love and think sex will get it for them ! Because women do what men ( or they think society wants ) Most women seem to be biologically engineered to please men in one way or another ( with some exceptions of course.)